PDA

View Full Version : Julian Assange: Hero or Pawn



Gone001
28th December 2010, 07:10
As of right now I am a huge Julian Assange fan. Clearly there has been little to no change or hope in the American political system since the days of JFK (in my opinion). The system is clearly corrupt and has thus far only been papered over or reformed; never restructured from the bottom up. Clearly there needs to be change which can only occur from something radical happening. Thus far Wikileaks has done this by slowly adding transparency to a corrupt Government. The cables have ranged from meaningless gossip to troubling, hard hitting news; like the recent exposure of the Panamanian president pressuring the U.S.to have there D.E.A office in Panama help them set up illigal wiretapping, not just for those involved in drugs or crime, but political opposition. The only thing that worries me is that Assange, unlike other people who have attempted such things against the U.S. Government, is still alive (not that I wish he was dead I just find it surprising). Now, if Assange is prosecuted or people are harmed do to Wikileaks, the U.S. Government could gain censorship over the internet and more control over free speech, an interest I believe it has had for some time. It's also possible, on the other hand, he's still alive simply because if he were to die under any circumstance people would become highly suspicious due to the content he's exposed and the fact that the whole world knows who the man is, unlike some others who have been shadily disposed of; people would take notice and ask alot of questions. So I wonder, is Assange a true patriot/ hero or is he another pawn to help further U.S. agenda, gain censorship over the internet and further delude the first amendment? It's also possible the U.S. Governemnt could stage something like 9/11 to gain this control, using Assange and Wikileaks as pawns un-knowingly. I personally believe he is on the good side, but there is still that looming thought in the back of my mind. Unfortunately we'll only know for certain once it's all over, which won't be for some time. Anyway, what are your thoughts on this matter?

fifi
28th December 2010, 07:16
Julian Assange is a hero to me, and in my opinion, the rumor that he is a CIA agent is an attempt by the CIA to discredit him and cause division among the whistleblowers.

Zook
28th December 2010, 07:31
Hi Aldous,


As of right now I am a huge Julian Assange fan. Clearly there has been little to no change or hope in the American political system since the days of JFK (in my opinion). The system is clearly corrupt and has thus far only been papered over or reformed; never restructured from the bottom up. Clearly there needs to be change which can only occur from something radical happening. Thus far Wikileaks has done this by slowly adding transparency to a corrupt Government. The cables have ranged from meaningless gossip to troubling, hard hitting news; like the recent exposure of the Panamanian president pressuring the U.S.to have there D.E.A office in Panama help them set up illigal wiretapping, not just for those involved in drugs or crime, but political opposition. The only thing that worries me is that Assange, unlike other people who have attempted such things against the U.S. Government, is still alive (not that I wish he was dead I just find it surprising). Now, if Assange is prosecuted or people are harmed do to Wikileaks, the U.S. Government could gain censorship over the internet and more control over free speech, an interest I believe it has had for some time. It's also possible, on the other hand, he's still alive simply because if he were to die under any circumstance people would become highly suspicious due to the content he's exposed and the fact that the whole world knows who the man is, unlike some others who have been shadily disposed of; people would take notice and ask alot of questions. So I wonder, is Assange a true patriot/ hero or is he another pawn to help further U.S. agenda, gain censorship over the internet and further delude the first amendment? It's also possible the U.S. Governemnt could stage something like 9/11 to gain this control, using Assange and Wikileaks as pawns un-knowingly. I personally believe he is on the good side, but there is still that looming thought in the back of my mind. Unfortunately we'll only know for certain once it's all over, which won't be for some time. Anyway, what are your thoughts on this matter?

Pawn.

His views on 9/11/2001 alone betrays him. There is absolutely zero intellectual and moral accommodation, in 2010, for any 40-year-old to hold that 9/11/2001 was a false conspiracy. Period.

All the other stuff just verifies the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the man. His various Rothschild connections, then, should come as no big surprise because the Rothschilds are the grandmasters of moral bankruptcy and intellectual dishonesty. Wikileaks is a rigged chess game.

:smow::smow::smow::typing::smow:

yaksuit
28th December 2010, 09:53
hero or pawn? perhaps both...maybe Julian can traverse the chess board and become a Queen ;). My intuition says "pawn" but i respect Bill's and other avalonian views encouraging people to keep an open mind in regards to his MO. His book deal to cover his lawyer costs etc is interesting. the MSM has latched so heavily to the personification of julian and wikileaks and this only seems to overall benefit the establishment for the now....i would love to be wrong and that Julian is more of a maverick than a chess piece in this context...i just can't see it yet........i am keeping keeping an open mind on this one :)

JoshERTW
28th December 2010, 15:42
Neither

Confused individual who got caught somewhere between good intentions for the wrong reasons and pissing off a lot of powerful people - with a smattering of deep seeded egotism and sense of adventure thrown in for good measure.

I personally believe he was trying to do something for humanity, though perhaps his intentions for doing so were more "service to self" i.e. self aggrandizement, fame, fortune, women etc. (this last part is clearly demonstrated by his "lawsuit" in Sweden)

Perhaps the fact that his intentions were not for the greater good in a pure sense (i.e. the "greater good" as he saw it was a by-product of his own benefit) explains why he has encountered so much apparent bad karma throughout this process. In drawing all this fire however, he is causing many mouth pieces like Sarah Palin to accrue their own energetic baggage.

This is all just opinion ofcourse - I'm also not in the least bit convinced that the information he recieved and is publishing now did not come directly from Agency folks. I am convinced that if this is the case, Assange did not know it, and instead proceeded to pursue his goals of fame and popularity and perhaps some transparency in gov't for us little people (and some headaches for the big ones)

Dale
28th December 2010, 16:00
In my opinion, Mr. Assange's motives aren't nearly as worrisome as what is being made of his case.

What it all seems to be slowly boiling down to is a increased monitoring of the Internet and persecution of those holding a view contrary to an established, societal "norm."

norman
28th December 2010, 16:30
Neither

Confused individual who got caught somewhere between good intentions for the wrong reasons and pissing off a lot of powerful people - with a smattering of deep seeded egotism and sense of adventure thrown in for good measure.

I personally believe he was trying to do something for humanity, though perhaps his intentions for doing so were more "service to self" i.e. self aggrandizement, fame, fortune, women etc. (this last part is clearly demonstrated by his "lawsuit" in Sweden)

Perhaps the fact that his intentions were not for the greater good in a pure sense (i.e. the "greater good" as he saw it was a by-product of his own benefit) explains why he has encountered so much apparent bad karma throughout this process. In drawing all this fire however, he is causing many mouth pieces like Sarah Palin to accrue their own energetic baggage.

This is all just opinion ofcourse - I'm also not in the least bit convinced that the information he recieved and is publishing now did not come directly from Agency folks. I am convinced that if this is the case, Assange did not know it, and instead proceeded to pursue his goals of fame and popularity and perhaps some transparency in gov't for us little people (and some headaches for the big ones)

I think that 'reads' as PAWN.

I agree with just about all of that. Orchestrated chaos is a game that depends on most of it's participants being unwitting 'method actors'. The whole scam relies on each key player being very convincing. The best way to do that is to use "convinced" role players. If they all start out believing in what they are doing, the whole show goes well. It can all be very 'real' but it's tweaked and directed at the orchestrators goals. Those people have centuries of ancestral Macheavellianism in their skillsets and they are so good at it.

But, they've never had so many people aware of what they are up to before. This could still go badly wrong for them.

Zook
28th December 2010, 16:46
In my opinion, Mr. Assange's motives aren't nearly as worrisome as what is being made of his case.
What it all seems to be slowly boiling down to is a increased monitoring of the Internet and persecution of those holding a view contrary to an established, societal "norm."

True, Dale. I would just add that it's a staged persecution. The rabbit on the greyhound track. In the end, it will not matter whether Wikileaks was staged or not (just like it has not mattered in the past nine years that 9/11/2001 was staged) ... for the fear and anxiety created - this time in the expendable political classes of the pyramid - will secure cooperation from these classes in TMastardsTB attempt to bring about "security fixes" on the informational highways and byways.

Julian Assange is a minnow in the sea of sharks .. just like Osama bin Laden was. If either had been genuine antagonists against the oppressive bankster empire, they would be preserved forever in the amber of human revolutionaries. Alas, Assange and bin Laden both stand to be preserved in the sealing amber of human patsies.

:smow::typing:

Carmody
28th December 2010, 16:58
Julian, if he was really 'pulling for' mankind and not for any other agenda, Julian would have about the same # of moves available to him as a Barak Obama might. Basically, the moves available to a pawn. One move.

Meaning, he might have one move available to him that allows him to skip out of any situation that may have contrived to get him to where he is now. If indeed it was an overt act of multifaceted insider contrivance - that has taken him to where he is right now.

It is possible for good guys to get caught up in systems of manipulation and for them to bide their time and see what they personally may or may not do in a given situation or evolving situation.

I'm not saying that is true, but if it was then only Julian would know if and when he would want to make (or not) a break with any such group or situation.

For example. take Tony Blair. Please.

Let's say this robotic nincompoop somehow simultaneously grows a brain and heart overnight. The next day he realizes he has one single big move he can execute before the group he's involved with goes from seeing him as an asset -to a threat. What does he do? does he bide his time and wait for the point where he might be most effective.. or does he break and run now? Will he survive it? Can he see and understand the flow and shape of things -that well? Will his immediate fears override his sense of outrage and desire to fix things? What to do and how to spend one's 'single move' most effectively?

Ok. enough with the cringing and unpleasant moment of seeing Blair as anything other than a witch project. :bad:

All I'm saying is that really, we have no idea. Even though we internally desire to know the shape of things to come, so we can figure out our response to a perceived difficulty in our lives.

We have a suspended pendulum in our lives that is affecting us like we are some sort of deer that is freezing/stuck in the given headlights of the given situation.



The trick it understand that the suspended pendulum that is swinging over us... is sometimes, the whole shape of the trick in itself.

To create enough doubt and instability ....that we are frozen, frozen and far away from taking any form of action. An action that requires clear contemplation of the variables, before it is made. Contemplation that has yet to take place as one is....frozen from even finishing the discernment of the event that is freezing us in the headlights. the headlights of indecision.

I'm not trying to say anything specific, here. I'm just attempting to inspire thought on what is really going on. And that is for the individual to make up their mind on.

Burke
29th December 2010, 18:23
His views on 9/11/2001 alone betrays him. There is absolutely zero intellectual and moral accommodation, in 2010, for any 40-year-old to hold that 9/11/2001 was a false conspiracy. Period.


Post the video or source the transcript where he says this please.

Research for yourself and get corroborating evidence before you make your mind up folks! This game is played dirty and one quote from one guy in one article on the intewebs does not make a fact lol.

Hero or Pawn?

I Dont Know

...and neither do any of you

Peace of Mind
29th December 2010, 18:48
I don't believe in the terrorism stuff. I live in a very diverse city and I have many affiliates in the Middle Eas and else where. Much of what is being told to the masses about terrorism are lies. It (the notion) exist mainly to get people to give up their freedom to Home Land security, greed, and other secretive endeavors. When ever I hear or see anything about this so called terror agenda... I see and feel trickery is a myst...
The fact that we can/cannot prove 9/11, WMD, Invasion of Iraq, Bin Laden where abouts...are just a few of the things to leave any rational mind skeptical. The Elites invented this game, we just have to be brave enough to change it or fall victem in every way...

Peace

Zook
29th December 2010, 20:33
Post the video or source the transcript where he says this please.

Research for yourself and get corroborating evidence before you make your mind up folks! This game is played dirty and one quote from one guy in one article on the intewebs does not make a fact lol.

Hero or Pawn?


From the 911blogger website: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-22/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-annoyed-911-truth

"Wanted by the CIA: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange"
Belfast Telegraph, July 19, 2010

beginExcerpt

In this interview, Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell asks Wikileaks founder Julian Assange about "conspiracy theories". Assange subsequently explains his position.

His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."

Mr. Assange seems to have conveniently forgotten that 9/11 may be, in a very concrete sense, a 'conspiracy for war', leading directly to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the permanent "War on Terror".

In November 2009, Wikileaks released "half a million US national text pager intercepts" covering a "24 hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington."[1] This is all commendable. However, given Mr. Assange's rather curious disposition towards 9/11 truth, how much effort can we really expect from Wikileaks in the future?

end



I Dont Know

...and neither do any of you

:smow::typing:

ps: Even if you yourself don't know, Heretic ... I would be grateful if you refrain from speaking on behalf of the rest of us, some of whom have actually gone deep inside the subterranean rabbit hole; dug the hole wider; found the stash of premium carrots inside the holding walls; and gained the required sharp vision to see things that remain mostly hidden to the surface-dwelling cabbage-munching blissful bunnies in the brier patch. Thank you.

ps2: Humble opinions all around.

Gone001
29th December 2010, 20:36
Right, and maybe you should read the main post before you comment. I'm asking for your opinion. No one knows anything for sure, thats obvious.

Zook
29th December 2010, 21:23
Right, and maybe you should read the main post before you comment. I'm asking for your opinion. No one knows anything for sure, thats obvious.

Obvious to whom?

What is obvious to me ... is that the obvious is being interpreted as if it were not. So I ask myself this ... how is this possible with so many brilliant young minds around? Some hints can be found here:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlpODYhnPEo

Cognitive dissonance is the only viable explanation I can find to describe those who, against the preponderance of the evidence against Assange and Wikileaks, are refusing to let go of their hallucination. I invite you to watch the three youtube clips (by Webster Tarpley) that I posted just an hour or so ago; and see if you can shake off the effects of whatever drug (metaphorical or otherwise) is making you see Assange as a white knight on a matching steed.

:smow::typing:

3optic
29th December 2010, 21:46
Right, and maybe you should read the main post before you comment. I'm asking for your opinion. No one knows anything for sure, thats obvious.

A semantic pit fall. Expressed ideas are opinions. Including ones that are claimed to be obvious. Zookumar is expressing his with style and artistic flourish. It's OK to spar with him in a playful, passionate, yet detached manner. Don't let him get under your skin. It's all a game. Bring your "A" ;)

Teakai
29th December 2010, 23:54
I seriously don't know, Aldous.

I feel that he is a good 'un. But even those with the best of motives can be fed the wrong information. It's not just Assange's integrity that is at work here.

Either way - I think people's rights are their rights and that they shouldn't be sacrificed to the system simply because the action offends.
He did no crime, so why did he do the time - that is the real issue. But it seems to have gotten lost in a debate about something that seems to be rather minor in comparison.

Of course - it happened post 911, too, but as the detainees were mostly Middle Eastern looking - and most people were OK with it because Middle East means Moslem to a great many Westerners and Moslems were promoted as the threat.

Now the same thing is happening, but somehow it's not an issue.

These people are clever, they manipulate our herd mentality and know just how to do it.

loveandgratitude
30th December 2010, 00:39
Julian assange has publicly stated that 9/11 was not an inside job...............do you have an osterich syndrome..........what is so wrong with this statement...........................everything that has happened to bring us to this point..........the wars....the rape of the economy.......the theft of the economy..............the illegal arrest of the true truth tellers........the murder of the true truth tellers.................the control and loss of freedom and freedom of speeech was esculated due to 9/11................9/11 was the pivotal point and the key to this global world takeover................how can you support a person who takes the stance of the nwo order.................never forget ......9/11 was an inside job..........and if you support julian assange then you must support his statement that 9/11 was not an inside job...............this guy is obviously an intel israel mossad/nazi distraction......................................t he more you find out about this guy the more a red flag appears

fifi
30th December 2010, 00:57
if you support julian assange then you must support his statement that 9/11 was not an inside job

That's not true. I support JA, but I also support that 9/11 is an inside job. We don't know the real reason why JA said that. Who knows, maybe his life or the lives of his relatives are threatened. Who knows, maybe in the encryptic file that JA will send the key if some harm comes to him, contains the proof that 9/11 is an inside job. We don't really know what happens to him. But judging the leaks that have come out, like the "collateral damage" video, leaks about big pharma Pfizer conducting harmful experiments without the victims' knowledge and consent, big oil Shell has put its people in government office to spy for them, the PTB supports Monsanto and plans to punish any euro countries for against GMO, etc. Thanks to wikileaks that we know about this. And not just a handful of us, but a lot of people worldwide. Of course the PTB will try to twist this disaster into something that benefits them, or to do damage control...but I think JA is a brave soul.

Teakai
30th December 2010, 01:12
I have a question about Julian Asange saying 911 wasn't an inside job - was he actually seen saying it? Or is this a media quote?

Edit to add:If Asange really didn't think 911 wasn't an inside job - why was 911 covered on wikileaks?
A-a-a-a-a-a -nd would he really be so stupid as to come out and say that 911 wasn't an inside job and that 911 truthers annoyed him?

It seems very much to me to be a case of the 'ptb' doing their utmost to isolate Asange from every angle.
On top of that - I really have a tough time believing a media quote - especially one that, when you think about it, would be such a stupid and contradictory thing to say.

But again - that point is sort of moot - because the way I view it, Asange's actions aren't the issue, they're the distraction.
The reaction to his actions are the issue.

ponda
30th December 2010, 01:20
So Zook are you open to the distinct possibility that you are completely wrong or do you have cognitive dissonance...

Erin
30th December 2010, 02:05
At this point I think he's probably a little bit of both...with some other things thrown in.

If anything, Bradley Manning is the true "hero" here. JA's situation, on the other hand, represents something bigger than just him now.

loveandgratitude
30th December 2010, 02:09
that's not true. I support ja, but i also support that 9/11 is an inside job. We don't know the real reason why ja said that. Who knows, maybe his life or the lives of his relatives are threatened. Who knows, maybe in the encryptic file that ja will send the key if some harm comes to him, contains the proof that 9/11 is an inside job. We don't really know what happens to him. But judging the leaks that have come out, like the "collateral damage" video, leaks about big pharma pfizer conducting harmful experiments without the victims' knowledge and consent, big oil shell has put its people in government office to spy for them, the ptb supports monsanto and plans to punish any euro countries for against gmo, etc. Thanks to wikileaks that we know about this. And not just a handful of us, but a lot of people worldwide. Of course the ptb will try to twist this disaster into something that benefits them, or to do damage control...but i think ja is a brave soul.

really .......you did not know this..................really..............this info was well known years ago....................nothing knew here sorry..................you think ja is afraid of being killed if he said 9/11 was an inside job.........really................and he leaks so said military documents...................do you think some 19 year old kid soldier sat at a computer for weeks and downloaded all these documents and nobody knew..................really...................... .......sorry the real important documents are locked away where nobody will every see them.....................ja just signed a book deal with murdoch..................really.................th is is such a joke...........................cannot stop laughing......................some people will never accept the truth no matter how much info you present them........................and i will present more info about ja..........................i know you want a hero..............but the real hero are us......................by telling the truth..............with no gain...............

Ross
30th December 2010, 02:14
really .......you did not know this..................really..............these were well known years ago....................nothing knew here sorry..................you think ja is afraid of being killed if he said 9/11 was an inside job.........really................and he leaks so said military documents...................do you think some 19 year old kid sat at a computer for weeks and downloaded all these documents and nobody knew..................really...................... .......sorry the real important documents are locked away where nobody will every see them.....................ja just signed a book deal with murdoch..................really.................th is is such a joke...........................cannot stop laughing......................some people will never accept the truth no matter how much info you present them........................and i will present more info about ja..........................i know you want a hero..............but the real hero are us......................by telling the truth..............with no gain...............

This is really annoying to read. Not the content but the use of......................................perhaps you could write in a more unbroken fashion?

Ross

loveandgratitude
30th December 2010, 02:30
the powers to be.........murdoch........just signed a book deal with him.......?????????????????????????

ponda
30th December 2010, 02:33
Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are being attacked from both sides of the fence here.

On one hand the establishment is going hard at him(and wiki) calling for his assassination,imprisonment etc and denouncing him as a terrorist and a threat to the world.All of these over reactions are telling in themselves but one thing that they are implying is that JA and Wiki are for real and genuine.

Then on the other hand you have some web sites,journalists and others who are denouncing him as an evil puppet of the cia,mossad,rothshilds,zionists,name your conspiracy, etc .Some of these web sites and journalists have actually said that wiki wants all arabs and chinese killed and that JA wants the internet shut down and other ridiculous claims.These claims are telling also but they on the other hand imply that JA and Wiki are not genuine.

All this and there's only been a few cables released.Interesting times ahead

Gone001
30th December 2010, 02:39
ponda- Haha, I think that's the one thing we can agree on; there are definitely interesting times ahead!

ponda
30th December 2010, 02:54
the powers to be.........murdoch........just signed a book deal with him.......?????????????????????????


So now he's in bed with murdoch !!!!!

Whatever next ?????

loveandgratitude
30th December 2010, 04:12
Dear Ross,
Now we are censoring a style of writing. Does this old fashion style appeal to you. I thought we the people had
a right to express ourselves anyway we like. But sorry.............this is how I express myself............sorry if this
offends you............annoying...............but I find censoring a style of wriitng annoying. Keep your mind open
to free expression................I love dots..............................I join them up all the time...................
lots of love

Ross
30th December 2010, 05:54
really .......you did not know this..................really..............this info was well known years ago....................nothing knew here sorry..................you think ja is afraid of being killed if he said 9/11 was an inside job.........really................and he leaks so said military documents...................do you think some 19 year old kid soldier sat at a computer for weeks and downloaded all these documents and nobody knew..................really...................... .......sorry the real important documents are locked away where nobody will every see them.....................ja just signed a book deal with murdoch..................really.................th is is such a joke...........................cannot stop laughing......................some people will never accept the truth no matter how much info you present them........................and i will present more info about ja..........................i know you want a hero..............but the real hero are us......................by telling the truth..............with no gain...............





Dear Ross,
Now we are censoring a style of writing. Does this old fashion style appeal to you. I thought we the people had
a right to express ourselves anyway we like. But sorry.............this is how I express myself............sorry if this
offends you............annoying...............but I find censoring a style of wriitng annoying. Keep your mind open
to free expression................I love dots..............................I join them up all the time...................
lots of love


This is ridiculous, saying it is censoring.

I also PM'ed you, asking you to not use broken text, for all the members here.

saying "but sorry, this is how I express myself'" has no regard for the reader of your posts, and seems to me, to be a rather selfish act, thinking only of yourself and not the members of this forum.


I thought we the people had
a right to express ourselves anyway we like.

If you mean here at Avalon then you obviously have not read the guidelines.

Please read the guidelines, this one in particular:


9. OVER USE OF TEXT FORMATTING

1. Excessive use of over the top attention grabbing formats such as ALL CAPS, large text, alarmist and panicky URGENT headlines are not permitted and may be edited by moderators.

Now, as I see it, your use of dots, every 3 or so words falls under 'attention grabbing'

I ask you again, Please stop using broken text.

Thank you,

Ross

EDIT: back on topic.

Burke
30th December 2010, 06:11
From the 911blogger website: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-22/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-annoyed-911-truth

"Wanted by the CIA: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange"
Belfast Telegraph, July 19, 2010

beginExcerpt

In this interview, Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell asks Wikileaks founder Julian Assange about "conspiracy theories". Assange subsequently explains his position.

His obsession with secrecy, both in others and maintaining his own, lends him the air of a conspiracy theorist. Is he one? "I believe in facts about conspiracies," he says, choosing his words slowly. "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news." What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud." What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes."

Mr. Assange seems to have conveniently forgotten that 9/11 may be, in a very concrete sense, a 'conspiracy for war', leading directly to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and the permanent "War on Terror".

In November 2009, Wikileaks released "half a million US national text pager intercepts" covering a "24 hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington."[1] This is all commendable. However, given Mr. Assange's rather curious disposition towards 9/11 truth, how much effort can we really expect from Wikileaks in the future?

end



:smow::typing:

ps: Even if you yourself don't know, Heretic ... I would be grateful if you refrain from speaking on behalf of the rest of us, some of whom have actually gone deep inside the subterranean rabbit hole; dug the hole wider; found the stash of premium carrots inside the holding walls; and gained the required sharp vision to see things that remain mostly hidden to the surface-dwelling cabbage-munching blissful bunnies in the brier patch. Thank you.

ps2: Humble opinions all around.

Then you can remain as grateful as you ever were, because I in no way spoke for you or anyone else on these boards. I simply stated a fact. None of you know. I stand by that and until one of you can prove otherwise, it remains.

You speculate, assume, dig through the net and read the thoughts of others based on regurgitated material that is also made up of assumption, speculation, and even hearsay. There is so much of this rhetoric floating around out there that I guess it could be equated with some dirt. I guess you could dig rabbit holes in this dirt and call your favored rhetoric "premium carrots" if you choose, but at the end of the day you have found nothing that was not put there left for you to find by others, some of which are trying to deceive by your own admitions.

All you have is assumption, speculation, and possibilities. Making fact out of testimony from one article, written by one guy, found on only one website, where there is no proof, no video, no audio, no transcript or sourced material to show this alleged event even took place is not a humble opinion. It is the height of arrogance indeed. To assume you know more than anyone else when you know nothing of them or how much time they spend daily educating themselves speaks arrogance as well, and the tag line of "humble opinions" is just sugar to make that arrogance visually acceptable.

Hearsay is not allowed into a court of law as proof of anything beyond witness testimony yet it is being flouted across the net like fact and condemnation follows. Matthew Bell did not even source his own article. Tell me it isn't true that we are left to believe that this is what Assange really thinks of 911 and those who investigate it...because Matthew Bell said so?

The masses seem to be doing this all across the blogosphere and somehow it has become a fact everyone seems to operate from yet if one person alone has the truth, and everyone else disagrees with it. It is still the truth. (insert clever Ghandi quote here)

Take an emotional step back for a moment.

911 just happens to be the most notorious conspiracy theory of our generation. Rape and sexual crimes just happen to be the most knee jerk provoking crimes of our generation across many cultures. He stands accused of betraying both 911 and women. Where is the proof? We still require these things before we make our minds up don't we? "Innocent until proven guilty?"

...phaw...you (along with countless others) have already judged him and have torches and pitchforks already in hand without any proof whatsoever. The reason you know how he feels about 911, sure enough to label him liar and deceiver is...

...because Matthew Bell said so

and well if that is true...than this must be true...which means those things over there are true...which means that the lawyers he picks for his defense can now also become "proof"...omg where does it end? And this from people across the net who are investigating how illusions are used against us.

*snort*

Someone is trying to play the masses...pulling their heart strings to turn them against the messenger, and it works on the most intellectual of people because it is an emotional manipulation and not an intellectual one. Do you realize that of all the hundreds of videos out there, blog posts, message board posts, and talking point sound bytes repeating over and over that Assange betrays 911 theorists originated with this one article alone. There is no other material among aaaall that other material out there on Assange that supports this.

I will even publicly accept the possibility that I am wrong on this. I am not even defending Assange here, I have already stated that I do not know. I also point out that you do not know either...however much that may ruffle your feathers, I do not say it because I have something against you, but to me you seem to be the most aggressive on these boards against Assange as no Wikileaks post goes by without a few lengthy posts from you trying to convince others you are correct in your accusation against him. You could very well be right. Your educated guess could be right. But you don't know and only have conviction.

My opinion is truly humble as it is born from the understanding that I do not have all the facts (hardly any actually) and that I am speculating, and merely pointing out that this is all any of us are doing.

loveandgratitude
30th December 2010, 06:18
THE DOT
THE DOT...
# It brings energy into a room...
# It focuses and distracts at the same time...
# It is the most pure form of stimulation...
# It cleans your nervous system scrubbing away false information...
# It is a religion...
# An exploration into belief.
Allow a dot to print directly into you.. Gaze for 1 minute into a dot. Then close your eyes and focus on the image now physically imprinted on to your mind. This will enabled The Dot to Bless you and will Cleanse your thoughts putting you in the right frame of mind to learn more.
Love and Blessings

Ross
30th December 2010, 06:27
In regards to Heretics post:

The art of discerning is a tough road. To be the 'fly on the wall' would truely be a wonderful thing, and not just in the Assange case.

and for Zook, I love your passion and your wit;)
Ross

Gone001
30th December 2010, 06:41
Ross- I don't care if your a moderator or the Queen of England, you can take that attitude and go post elsewhere unless you have something to add to the discussion at hand. It's my thread and it doesn't seemingly bother anyone but you. This is a discussion on Julian Assange not a place for you to come and flaunt the tiny little bit of authority you have. Really, getting riled up over the over use of periods, how infantile and silly.

Seikou-Kishi
30th December 2010, 07:05
Why are you being so adversarial, Aldous? And by the way, there hasn't been a Queen of England for over 300 years. Ross has never shown himself to be petty or authoritarian, the fault must be in your regard of him.

Gone001
30th December 2010, 07:31
Seikou-Kishi- Well if the Queens been dead for 300 years it would only make him being the queen of England even more impressive wouldn't it haha? I don't know Ross in the slightest and have no regard of him besides what i take away from this thread. He may be a candidate for for st. hood, I don't know. When I see him calling someones posts annoying and then in turn calling them selfish with no regard for others then I will in turn stick up for that person like I would anyone else. Especially when that person has done nothing but try and contribute as well as give me advice when I needed help. That sure doesn't seem like someone with no regard for others. I personally don't see the big deal in posting a bunch of dots in your post, there not hurting anyone. If there actually bothering people then those people should ask themselves why they can be bothered by something so trivial. If it's her or his way of expressing herself/himself then who is anyone to Judge. This is my opinion anyway. I'm not a MOD it's not like what I say is going to change anything anyway, but I have the right to say it, weather it's to a MOD or anyone else. I don't mean to come off adversarial or make it seem like I have something against Ross, I just disagree with him in this situation and in turn his handling of it, simple as that. I apologize if I offended you.

Gone001
30th December 2010, 07:35
Oh and if we could all just get back to topic at hand that would be great. I'm very pleased so far with the thoughtful and intelligent responses I've seen on this thread. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading all of your posts. THANK YOU ALL FOR CONTRIBUTING!!

Cheers,

Aldous

OneLittleFrog
30th December 2010, 07:54
...the rest of us, some of whom have actually gone deep inside the subterranean rabbit hole; dug the hole wider; found the stash of premium carrots inside the holding walls; and gained the required sharp vision to see things that remain mostly hidden to the surface-dwelling cabbage-munching blissful bunnies in the brier patch. Thank you.
ps2: Humble opinions all around.

Am I the only one who has a difficulty correlating the repeated claim of 'humble opinions' with the astounding arrogance of the quote above? Where you label everyone who disagrees with your tunnel-vision attacks on Assange as "surface-dwelling cabbage-munching blissful bunnies?"

Thank you Heretic for your reasoned and honestlly humble response. Many of us are still keeping our minds open as we wait for all the cards to land face-up on the table.

Seikou-Kishi
30th December 2010, 07:55
Frankly, Aldous, I find you precocious and immature. You've no grounds whatsoever to speak to Ross or any other member of the forum in the way you have done. The manner in which you've behaved shows nothing less than a greatly exaggerated sense of your own importance. The moderators here are such because they have earned respect and have proven themselves with consistent effort in regards to the standards of the forum, to treat somebody with such blatant disregard and disrespect simply because they asked somebody to write in a manner legible to others is outrageous and completely unjustified.

This forum may well promote individuality and freedom, but its freedom goes hand in hand with being responsible in the applications of that freedom, and individuality and egotism are entirely different concepts you ought to learn to separate.

Ross
30th December 2010, 08:13
Hi all,

Firsty, I take full responsibility for my Posts. I responded as I did, I could of chosen more appropriate words than "annoying" and "selfish", I didn't, and I apologise to all I offended.

I found the broken text very hard on my eyes and somewhat disturbing, as did with others.
Sometimes new members do not read the guidelines, and often can be familiar with other forums where anything goes and then think, anything goes here. That is not the case here at Avalon.

Also worthy to mention, is that the Assange material is highly 'charged' as we are witnessing on several threads. We must all be careful at the emotional triggers at play, including myself.

Now, let this be the last of the 'off topic' posts and continue onwards in trying to discern Mr Assange and his intentions. We are on the same team;)

Thank you all

Ross

lightblue
30th December 2010, 08:17
Frankly, Aldous, I find you precocious and immature. You've no grounds whatsoever to speak to Ross or any other member of the forum in the way you have done. The manner in which you've behaved shows nothing less than a greatly exaggerated sense of your own importance. The moderators here are such because they have earned respect and have proven themselves with consistent effort in regards to the standards of the forum, to treat somebody with such blatant disregard and disrespect simply because they asked somebody to write in a manner legible to others is outrageous and completely unjustified.

This forum may we promote individuality and freedom, but it freedom goes hand in hand with being responsible in the applications of that freedom, and individuality and egotism are entirely different concepts you ought to learn to separate.


i find this moralising questionable...

also i worry about my use of dots now..i like using them and i wonder if i'll be told off any time now...

equally, i do dislike more and more of the mods going about ranking posts according to thier own judgement - by the way and from what i can read, they have no superiority of judgment whatsoever...every so often and it's become more fashionable these days, you see one of the mods lable a post: EXCELLENT just because they may like it - i imagine...in a lot of cases what they find "excellent" is of minor value to me...what are they trying to achieve i wonder...i now see that the dots became annoying...really sad... :unsure: l

.

loveandgratitude
30th December 2010, 08:21
Now this is getting ridicuously personal. As Aldous suggests lets get back to the subject at hand and drop all the insults and rude comments. I was quite hurt by the remarks made by Ross and thought they were unwarranted but no need for anyone to get there ego out of shape. ALdous has started a great thread and lets continue this discussion without the judgement of each other and insulting each other.

Gone001
30th December 2010, 08:25
Seikou-Kishi-

Frankly I find you to be an over sensitive egotistical hypocrite. Your telling me off for what I said to a mod then have the gull to call me precocious and immature? Your being immature by attacking me when the situation is over and dealt with. If you have something to say to me then send me a message as apposed to posting on this thread about JULIAN ASSANGE trying to seek attention. I explained to you my grounds already, he didn't simply tell her to write in a legible manner for others to read or I wouldn't have made the comment in the first place. If you think that's all that was said then clearly you have your own literacy issues and didn't bother to read the original post or my reasons for why I said what I did. Just because hes a moderator doesn't mean he's above criticism. What you have just said is not only the rudest thing in this thread but the rudest thing I've seen altogether on this forum. I and every other Avalon member deserve no less respect then a MOD. You don't know me or have any idea who I am or what I've done in my life for this cause so what gives you the right to talk to me like that? What you have done is completely judge me because I've disagreed with one man and you probably wouldn't feel as strongly about it if he wasn't a mod or if you yourself weren't a senior member. God, you would think I slapped the president or bombed a school. Get over yourself. I apologize for my vulgarity in this post but I haven't been this insulted in a long time.

Ross
30th December 2010, 08:32
If this continues on I will close this thread. Last chance folks, please get back on topic.

Ross

Gone001
30th December 2010, 08:39
I tried saying that one already hopefully this time it will stick. There have been a lot of interesting well thought out posts on this forum and It would be a shame for it to be removed now. I would also like to thank Ross for being man enough to apologize and I in turn apologize to anyone I have offended.

Zook
30th December 2010, 08:55
Then you can remain as grateful as you ever were, because I in no way spoke for you or anyone else on these boards. I simply stated a fact. None of you know. I stand by that and until one of you can prove otherwise, it remains.
[...]
My opinion is truly humble as it is born from the understanding that I do not have all the facts (hardly any actually) and that I am speculating, and merely pointing out that this is all any of us are doing.


Let me just say - before my head finds the Morphean pillow - that you have a genuine reason to be humble here, Heretic ... after all, you yourself state that you hardly have any facts. That's a legitimate reason to be humble.

In any event, you asked for a source. You didn't ask for multiple sources. I gave you the Belfast Telegraph ... a source. Is the Telegraph not good enough for you? I realize it's probably not a Rothschild rag ... perhaps you're looking for the air of legitimate illegitimacy that only the RothschildMastardsTB can provide? Seriously, do you think the Telegraph would risk its reputation by keeping on its payroll a journalist who makes things up? What proof do you have that Matthew Bell concocted that statement and attributed it to Assange?

Humble opinions all around.

:smow::typing:

Btw, I thank you for reading my mind and concluding that I offer humble opinions to mask my arrogance.

Alas, you are as prescient in that respect as you are in finding a perch on the fence between the opposing views of Wikileaks (and Assange). In point of fact, I offer humble opinions quite liberally and largely because I understand that much of the public has been softened to the point that the slightest critical thought that bounces against their insulated worldview, often leaves a bruise. I don't know any Avalonian here outside of Avalon, certainly not enough even here to carry on and parry with as if they were close friends (yes, one of the things that makes a close friendship is the ability to take each other for granted; you try that with a stranger in Victorian days and see if you can't pluck your self out of a right pistol-pointing predicament). So you see, Heretic, my reason for being generous with Humble Ops is well-founded. All my life, people have told me that I have a very active voice during argument. Which is why I rarely discuss contentious things outside my close circle of friends. Which is why I gravitated to Avalon in the first place, e.g. to be among like minds if not always among good friends. This forum gives me the opportunity to speak freely. Self-awareness of my active voice has also obliged me to generously dole out Humble Ops. If that offends you, well, that's something you'll have to deal with.

Bill Ryan
30th December 2010, 09:18
Ross- I don't care if your a moderator or the Queen of England, you can take that attitude and go post elsewhere unless you have something to add to the discussion at hand. It's my thread and it doesn't seemingly bother anyone but you. This is a discussion on Julian Assange not a place for you to come and flaunt the tiny little bit of authority you have. Really, getting riled up over the over use of periods, how infantile and silly.

Actually, it bothers me too. I don't want to be adversarial, but here's my own personal stance. (And yes - this might warrant an interesting thread of its own.) :)

I don't want the forum to degenerate into a free-expression-fest swamped by people who can't write English very well justifying their lack of ability to write by saying that anything goes and that any request to spellcheck, format correctly or write full sentences is somehow 'censorship'.

I very much value the English language (any language!) as an artform.

Some members are dyslexic (and also highly intelligent, sensitive and perceptive) and they will always have my full support.

Some are non-English speakers who spend a LONG time working hard to express themselves clearly in a language that's not theirs. I really admire those people. Some of them work hard to construct messages in English that are better crafted than those from people who have English as their first language and have been writing and speaking it for 40 years.

Others don't seem to care. There's a difference.

:focus:

Gone001
30th December 2010, 09:34
Bill Ryan- Well Bill your absolutely right, it is an art form, but, like any other art form it's an individual form of expression and is open to interpretation. Now as for " Some members are dyslexic (and also highly intelligent, sensitive and perceptive) and they will always have my full support. Some are non-English speakers who spend a LONG time working hard to express themselves clearly in a language that's not theirs. I really admire those people. Some of them work hard to construct messages in English that are better crafted than those from people who have English as their first language and have been writing and speaking it for 40 years.", that I can appreciate. There is a difference between explaining a rule (like what you've just done) then simply saying "well it's a rule and it bothers people". It's like when your a child and ask your parents "why?" only to get the response "because I said so.", it can be quite frustrating. Thanks for your post and I'll most certainly take it under thoughtful consideration.

Cheers,

Aldous

Burke
30th December 2010, 09:47
Let me just say - before my head finds the Morphean pillow - that you have a genuine reason to be humble here, Heretic ... after all, you yourself state that you hardly have any facts. That's a legitimate reason to be humble.

In any event, you asked for a source. You didn't ask for multiple sources. I gave you the Belfast Telegraph ... a source. Is the Telegraph not good enough for you? I realize it's probably not a Rothschild rag ... perhaps you're looking for the air of legitimate illegitimacy that only the RothschildMastardsTB can provide? Seriously, do you think the Telegraph would risk its reputation by keeping on its payroll a journalist who makes things up? What proof do you have that Matthew Bell concocted that statement and attributed it to Assange?

Humble opinions all around.

:smow::typing:

Btw, I thank you for reading my mind and concluding that I offer humble opinions to mask my arrogance.

Alas, you are as prescient in that respect as you are in finding a perch on the fence between the opposing views of Wikileaks (and Assange). In point of fact, I offer humble opinions quite liberally and largely because I understand that much of the public has been softened to the point that the slightest critical thought that bounces against their insulated worldview, often leaves a bruise. I don't know any Avalonian here outside of Avalon, certainly not enough even here to carry on and parry with as if they were close friends (yes, one of the things that makes a close friendship is the ability to take each other for granted; you try that with a stranger in Victorian days and see if you can't pluck your self out of a right pistol-pointing predicament). So you see, Heretic, my reason for being generous with Humble Ops is well-founded. All my life, people have told me that I have a very active voice during argument. Which is why I rarely discuss contentious things outside my close circle of friends. Which is why I gravitated to Avalon in the first place, e.g. to be among like minds if not always among good friends. This forum gives me the opportunity to speak freely. Self-awareness of my active voice has also obliged me to generously dole out Humble Ops. If that offends you, well, that's something you'll have to deal with.

You are incorrect. I did not ask for a source and you knew this.


Post the video or source the transcript where he says this please.

I specifically used these words because neither exists. You HAD to post the Belfast Telegraph because it is the only one source out there that all other "sources" rely upon in quoting Mr. Assange. The only one. Doesn't that bother you? Seem a little suspicious given the circumstances surrounding these events as they unfold.

It was a ploy...a ruse to get you to quote the Belfast Telegraph which I was already well aware of as can be surmised by the nature of my post here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?9199-Julian-Assange-s-old-website-IQ.org-%28pre-Wikileaks%29&p=79789#post79789) and the date in which it was posted. You could only post that one source, because that is all that exists.

My intention was to merely point out that the facts and figures that are often tossed around as "proofs" are far from proof at all. Yet in this very thread you offer it as proof that he is pawn, speaking of "his beliefs" as if you heard them from the man himself, or have it on record that he believes this when you do not. AT BEST you only have another mans word on it. Treat everything you read as possible dis-info, no matter who it is from. Check your facts. Do your research because if you do not, you will be called out on it when you run into someone who has also researched all those little "premium carrots".

The very nature of this rumor activity is a symbol to me, of how injustices are carried out through the use of flimsy evidence offered as "proof". It has been used time and time again in dark times such as witch hunts and show trials when a verdict is already decided. I may not know if Assange is a light worker or evil incarnate, but I will defend his right to be judged on his actions and words and not on hearsay.

The rest of your post and small attacks upon my character being prescientious and a easy mark to Rothschild rags I will let slide right off me because I don't have to defend myself. My words and actions speak for themselves, and I am not the one quoting articles as scripture, then condemning people as if it were proof. I am quite comfortable being looked down upon as "unknowing" and a sheep by those who think themselves superior.

Please understand, my passion is not against you good sir for you are on a path that makes me smile and I feel joyous that you are out there investigating what is happening in the world, I see you as above many others who weigh the words of celebrity over those of import, yet only in current action and not in potential. May your path be blessed and your mind continue expanding.

My angst and passion is aimed at all of us, myself included, who uses hyperbole and un-substantiated data, connected by circumstance to arrive at "interpretation", then have the arrogance to call it fact.

humble opinions all around :cool:

chelmostef
30th December 2010, 10:54
It seems to me some are jumping to conclusions as fact when all the information need to be realised to actually draw a conclusion.

We are at this moment at the experiment stage (this is the release of information) and until ALL the information is realised one cannot know as 100% fact what the outcome will be only speculate.

We need the results to be able to draw a conclusion and this has not happened yet.

This is a major point. If we really have a chance effecting the outcome towards the benefit of humanity though our thought forms we should absolutely not jump to conclusions until the experiment has ended.

We can though our positive energies turn Julian into a hero.

Lets send love not hate even if we are wrong about Assage

Zook
30th December 2010, 14:10
Good morning Heretic, the Earth says hello!


You are incorrect. I did not ask for a source and you knew this.


??? I knew this?? Reading my mind again, are we? And here I am back at Avalon after two hours with my third eye and the Sun on a clear New Scotland sky with nary a chemtrail or a Moscow cumulonimbic donut to admire, feeling good and energized. *sigh* Perhaps you should put in as an opening act for Kreskin.
:jester:



Post the video or source the transcript where he says this please.
I specifically used these words because neither exists. You HAD to post the Belfast Telegraph because it is the only one source out there that all other "sources" rely upon in quoting Mr. Assange. The only one. Doesn't that bother you? Seem a little suspicious given the circumstances surrounding these events as they unfold.


Why should it bother me? Why does it bother you? Is there something about the Belfast Telegraph (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/features/wanted-by-the-cia-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-14880073.html) - that perhaps you are privy to - that makes you cringe? To me, BT is no more or less a source than the New York Times ... or the Guardian or The Economist or Der Spiegel (http://www.spiegel.de/international/). What ... Matthew Bell shouldn't get the same privileges and benefits of doubt that the journalists working for the other rags receive by default? (Yes, I believe that all mainstream media pipes are rags, and I have ample proof to back my statement up should you care to take the discussion in that direction).



It was a ploy...a ruse to get you to quote the Belfast Telegraph which I was already well aware of as can be surmised by the nature of my post here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?9199-Julian-Assange-s-old-website-IQ.org-%28pre-Wikileaks%29&p=79789#post79789) and the date in which it was posted. You could only post that one source, because that is all that exists.


You'll forgive me if I had not given proper attention to that post (Dec.12 is now more than two weeks ago) prior to this flareup which you had initiated yesterday. But did I hear you correctly? You were conducting a ploy ... a ruse?? Forgive me, Heretic, I'm a straight shooter ... when I decide to clock someone, I usually give them fair warning. Sucker punches are best left to those that play games with the truth, like our man in a mansion, Julian Assange (whose previous incarnation was mendax). To quote a dear old fat man once upon a big screen time sharing a moment of pure joy with his favorite son (beneath a hot tin roof), "What's that smell in this room? Didn't you notice it, Brick? Didn't you notice the powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity in this room?" - Richard Brooks/James Poe adaptation of Tennessee Williams critical American play Cat On A Hot Tin Roof.

But here's the beauty of it all (at l;east from where I'm standing) ... Mathew Bell's article offered at worst a neutral assessment of Wikileaks and Julian Assange! At best, an endorsement. So who really is the one doing their homework here? No ... I'm not gonna clock ya ... but I will set the record straight whenever and wherever I see it being bent. It's a genetic thing with me (e.g one of my character features, not flaws). And the record here clearly and unequivocally establishes that you tried to paint Matthew Bell's column as a rumor (implying lack of substantiation) and not as the journalistic common standard of reporting that it was and is. Period.



My intention was to merely point out that the facts and figures that are often tossed around as "proofs" are far from proof at all. Yet in this very thread you offer it as proof that he is pawn, speaking of "his beliefs" as if you heard them from the man himself, or have it on record that he believes this when you do not. AT BEST you only have another mans word on it. Treat everything you read as possible dis-info, no matter who it is from. Check your facts. Do your research because if you do not, you will be called out on it when you run into someone who has also researched all those little "premium carrots".


I've just called you out. Not to rub it in (I'm not that sort); but as a point of factual rectitude.



The very nature of this rumor activity is a symbol to me, of how injustices are carried out through the use of flimsy evidence offered as "proof". It has been used time and time again in dark times such as witch hunts and show trials when a verdict is already decided. I may not know if Assange is a light worker or evil incarnate, but I will defend his right to be judged on his actions and words and not on hearsay.


Sorry, I'm not about to mount that strawman and rhetorical device. I did not treat Bell's article as a rumor because it has the same journalistic privileges that some of the other online newspapers mentioned in this post have. OTOH, you treated it as a rumor based on your own fancy. Justice has been served in the irony that Bell was in fact treating Assange favorably; not as the target of a hit piece as you would have us believe. By all reasonable, objective standards, Julian Assange did say the words attriobuted to him by Matthew Bell.



The rest of your post and small attacks upon my character being prescientious and a easy mark to Rothschild rags I will let slide right off me because I don't have to defend myself. My words and actions speak for themselves, and I am not the one quoting articles as scripture, then condemning people as if it were proof. I am quite comfortable being looked down upon as "unknowing" and a sheep by those who think themselves superior.


I hope you will appreciate the irony of your remarks in your own quote above. Your allegation of my vanity is a continuation of your own misguided perceptions of me. If you are a sheep, then it is because of your own failures in observation, e.g. your lack of recognition of the freely observable. The arguments I have presented here on Avalon wrt Wikileaks and Julian Assange ... are derived from points of data, not from figments of my imagination. If I can connect the dots and you can't or choose not to - and the dots are there free for the connection by anyone who's taken the time to visit the rabbit hole - then that's merely more evidence of the dichotomy of the cabbage-munching bunny and the carrot-munching rabbit. Your characterization of Bell's reporting as rumor-milling when it is clearly not ... betrays your level
of effort in trying to measure the truth. You may not like it, Heretic, but that's my humble opinion.



Please understand, my passion is not against you good sir for you are on a path that makes me smile and I feel joyous that you are out there investigating what is happening in the world, I see you as above many others who weigh the words of celebrity over those of import, yet only in current action and not in potential. May your path be blessed and your mind continue expanding.


Well I must say, you sure have a funny way of keeping the harmony of Avalon, and the tweeting music in my ears. Bashing me with a 2x4 and then lifting me off the ground again to give me a closer listen to the circling singing birdies.



My angst and passion is aimed at all of us, myself included, who uses hyperbole and un-substantiated data, connected by circumstance to arrive at "interpretation", then have the arrogance to call it fact.
humble opinions all around :cool:

If it is perceived as arrogance, so be it. I will not be deterred from making the necessary conclusions when they warrant it. Wikileaks and JA have both warranted the conclusions I had made of them. If you want to agree to disagree. Fair enough. But you came swinging at me based on a false understanding of Matthew Bell's column. That's your burden to bear, not mine. Having said that, I don't have time for grudges.
So, Good Sir In Kind, we're both back at square one. I've said all that was needed to be said from my end. As far as I'm concerned, this flareup is history. You can have the final say if you want ... I will read it without replying.

:smow::typing:

ps: Here's a little something from Oliver to re-energize the morning with the right joules:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FXKyQUE-BI

Celine
30th December 2010, 14:18
i must say...thats some pretty civil and intelligent arguing ..

it was instructive and constructive.

thank you to both of you

Burke
30th December 2010, 15:33
ahh zook, a good morning to you as well

I could go and argue with you line by line as you have done with me to point out perceived flaws in your post

but I hope you will forgive me if I choose not to

I find it tedious and grandstanding does not appeal to me as i feel it is driven from a need to be right that I just cant seem to muster on such a wonderful day

my point here was never to poke at you and push your buttons for the mere fun of it as it may seem (well...mostly)

but to cast doubt on an "assumption" that Assange said what he said about 911, and to cast doubt on the idea that we have enough data to make any judgment at all that is reasonable about his character and emotional content

I feel I have attained that goal, and so I leave this thread and apologize to all for my long winded manner of prose, and for my belligerence in making a point at the expense of good ole Zook here

I have found that the things in this world that irritate me most, that justifies me to lash out at others, are the very traits that I abhor in myself and that I am merely projecting that anger at myself towards others

There was a time when my arrogance knew no bounds. I am still working on the problem it seems.

zook, I hope you can forgive me...

noamsh
30th December 2010, 16:03
I don't think Assange qualifies as neither yet.
As far as i'm aware he hasn't released any "earth shatturing" information..
didn't he say that he has some info regarding UFOs ?
and even if he does that , we'll have to think long and hard before deciding pawn or hero.

Ahkenaten
30th December 2010, 20:38
Oh dear there seems to be a certain, how can I say this delicately - lack of maturity being demonstrated on the Avalon Forum lately. It is unfortunate and disruptive and ends up damaging our ability to communicate respectfully and clearly here because, as I believe is the intent, the conversations then inevitably turn to individuals away from the subject matter. Bill and Moderators - what, if anything can done to offset/neutralize/modulate what appears to me to be intentional and in some cases coordinated interference with this Forum? Why should a few trample on the majority using freedom of expression as their cover?

kouby
30th December 2010, 22:14
Hi Aldous,



Pawn.

His views on 9/11/2001 alone betrays him. There is absolutely zero intellectual and moral accommodation, in 2010, for any 40-year-old to hold that 9/11/2001 was a false conspiracy. Period.

All the other stuff just verifies the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the man. His various Rothschild connections, then, should come as no big surprise because the Rothschilds are the grandmasters of moral bankruptcy and intellectual dishonesty. Wikileaks is a rigged chess game.

:smow::smow::smow::typing::smow:

What this guy said. Assange is a pawn who took over a good organization so that it didn't spread all the good stuff and can provide good media diversion with absolutely useless info (Berlusconi parties at the week-end ... WOW...).

ponda
30th December 2010, 22:35
What this guy said. Assange is a pawn who took over a good organization so that it didn't spread all the good stuff and can provide good media diversion with absolutely useless info (Berlusconi parties at the week-end ... WOW...).

kouby wiki has uncovered good info but you won't find out much about it in the msm.

Here are a few instances:

Shell oil company has infiltrated all upper levels of government in Nigeria using bribery and corruption

The u.s. government pressures smaller countries to bow to their wishes on such things as gmo foods and climate change etc

israel destroyed a syrian nuclear reactor

The u.s. secretary of state ordered u.s. diplomats to spy on united nation officials including the un chief

The u.s. military is paying media outlets for good commentary

pfizer used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout


And on it goes.Remember that only about two thousand of the 250,000 cables have been released and that they are only low level secret documents.Granted there is nothing earth shattering amongst them yet but it gives us an idea of the corruption,lying and complete lack of accountability that goes on amongst governments,corporations and the military.The good part is that this info is now being brought to the awareness of the greater public.

Ross
31st December 2010, 00:03
kouby wiki has uncovered good info but you won't find out much about it in the msm.

Here are a few instances:

Shell oil company has infiltrated all upper levels of government in Nigeria using bribery and corruption

The u.s. government pressures smaller countries to bow to their wishes on such things as gmo foods and climate change etc

israel destroyed a syrian nuclear reactor

The u.s. secretary of state ordered u.s. diplomats to spy on united nation officials including the un chief

The u.s. military is paying media outlets for good commentary

pfizer used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout


And on it goes.Remember that only about two thousand of the 250,000 cables have been released and that they are only low level secret documents.Granted there is nothing earth shattering amongst them yet but it gives us an idea of the corruption,lying and complete lack of accountability that goes on amongst governments,corporations and the military.The good part is that this info is now being brought to the awareness of the greater public.

Of an estimated 16 million documents in total.

noxon medem
31st December 2010, 00:10
- wanna voice my support to those who are tired of the word OR.
Hero OR pawn.
In both the photographic and our live visual sight (capability) in the reality world, real-time,
- it is (a fact) in and on the scale of light and colour ( the vibes we can see, individualy )
allmost EVERYTHING is INBETWEEN the extreem white and extreme black.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayscale
- Just an example :

3582

- So, Use the word OR wisely, or else ...

:confused:

Edit:
According to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Or )

- OR may be:
* A grammatical conjunction
* A logical operation indicating logical disjunction depicted as |, ∨, or simply or

- google-search on images greyscale:
http://www.google.no/images?q=greyscale&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:nb-NO:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=ACAdTc32AcecOrzu2LQJ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CEkQsAQwAw&biw=1440&bih=737

:juggle:

ponda
31st December 2010, 03:56
Of an estimated 16 million documents in total.

wow that many

Something, hopefully might be done shortly to speed things up with the release of more info

Gone001
31st December 2010, 04:05
Ponda- I herd him recently in an interview saying they were going to speed up the release. It was either the frost over the world, MSNBC or ABC interview. Sorry I can't remember which but there all worth checking out! I'll post them bellow.

Cheers,

Aldous

http://rutube.ru/tracks/3902275.html?v=052c85c05316e0952caec38e32b6e948 - MSNBC

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/julian-assange-full-interview-12437298 - ABC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6mcSXge4Qo - Frost over the world

Ross
31st December 2010, 04:06
wow that many

Something, hopefully might be done shortly to speed things up with the release of more info

Dont count on it, I suspect before public release, if infact all docs get to the media, it will be diluted or not released at all. Sadly.

ponda
31st December 2010, 04:13
Ponda- I herd him recently in an interview saying they were going to speed up the release. It was either the frost over the world, MSNBC or ABC interview. Sorry I can't remember which but there all worth checking out! I'll post them bellow.

Cheers,

Aldous


Ta for that Aldous

2011 should be big year for new info.I'm looking forward to it.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Dont count on it, I suspect before public release, if infact all docs get to the media, it will be diluted or not released at all. Sadly.

Yes well that could be a problem Ross but i suspect that wiki has taken that possibility into account.Also Openleaks chimes in in early 2011 as well.Things are hotting up

Zook
31st December 2010, 10:50
Good morning Heretic, the Earth says hello!


ahh zook, a good morning to you as well
[...]


There's nothing to forgive, Heretic. We move forward with the next wave. This thing is bigger than you and me. I'm reposting Oliver's Good Morning Starshine song. My jaw dropped (metaphorically) when I re-watched this video. When I posted it the first time, I retrieved the link from Google and added it without thinking too much about it. But as I saw it again, remarkable coincidences began to appear. Two surfers appear at about the 15 second mark, one wears a hood and the other has long freely-hanging hair. Look at your avatar and mine. At 0:45, Hoodsurf heads into the big ocean with his surfboard; a few yards behind, Hairsurf follows with his own surfboard. Think about this thread. You went into the water first; I followed. Keep watching. You catch the first wave in deeper water; I follow it back to the shore in shallower water. You ride the next wave back nicely standing up; I disappear into the following trough. The third wave, you ride shortly and fall into the water; I pick the same wave and ride it sweetly to the shore, but when I reach the shore, I get swallowed in a huge rip as you stand watching farther away (symbolic of Avalonians admonshing my perspective??). Finally, at about 2:10, I head to the deeper water where you are already waiting. There's a bit of uneventful standoff. At about 2:55, we both catch the next wave and ride it smoothly to shore on our respective surfboards (the peaceful denouement??). But wait it gets better ... at 2:28 .. a beautiful Dalmation puppy dog appears, turns, and then disappears again! Hmm ... an indication that some things are indeed black and white? Or perhaps an indication that things may appear black and white at first, but won't always remain that way?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FXKyQUE-BI&feature=player_embedded

To wit, there are more things to Heaven and Earth, Heretico, than dreamt up in our philosophies!

:smow::music::smow::smow:

kouby
31st December 2010, 15:57
kouby wiki has uncovered good info but you won't find out much about it in the msm.

Here are a few instances:

Shell oil company has infiltrated all upper levels of government in Nigeria using bribery and corruption

The u.s. government pressures smaller countries to bow to their wishes on such things as gmo foods and climate change etc

israel destroyed a syrian nuclear reactor

The u.s. secretary of state ordered u.s. diplomats to spy on united nation officials including the un chief

The u.s. military is paying media outlets for good commentary

pfizer used dirty tricks to avoid clinical trial payout


And on it goes.Remember that only about two thousand of the 250,000 cables have been released and that they are only low level secret documents.Granted there is nothing earth shattering amongst them yet but it gives us an idea of the corruption,lying and complete lack of accountability that goes on amongst governments,corporations and the military.The good part is that this info is now being brought to the awareness of the greater public.

I'm sorry to say it, but this is far from ground breaking news. It might be for CNN or FOX, but to the european public it is absolutely not news.

BTW at the rate they are releasing the files, it will take 38 years to release everything... You think the public is going to hold it's breath for 38 years? Quite useful for TPTB if the public stays docile while waiting for Wikileaks to do the job, no?

JP Assange just signed a deal for 1,5Mill for his biography... Is that a publicity stunt or is that "fighting for government transparency"?

If they really wanted to make an impact they could have released much more damaging stuff I'm sure. They've had all the media pointing their way for the last few months, but only use that media attention to play hide & seek, real good strategy for a guy who is supposed to be "the head" of a militant organisation.

JP Assange a media crazed attention hogger? Well you judge. But I'm done with waiting for that guy to release good documents.

Just the fact that he calls the 911 TRUTH MOVEMENT "ANNOYING" should have got you all mad for god's sake -_-"

Lifebringer
31st December 2010, 16:30
I think Julian Assange is our decision point at a democracy. That when a person finds information that should have been open to the people, the right to say it in print or over a mike provided there is proof of it, then the right to know or need to know is necessary. After the last six wars of American Corporate warmongerer, and lies to get our toops to shed blood over resources, Wiki and Assange are the voiceless's voice of inquiry and right to know. If they shut Assange up, other worthy news sources will follow. Therefore as i said, it is OUR decision point in history of man as a governmental body of laws of good vs evil, to keep this check and balance jon the dictators and back slappers undermining the citizens of their countries.
Julian should be left alone to do his job as he sees fit. So should others who wish to tell the people of the "secrets" that are worthy of publicity and exposure.

Zook
31st December 2010, 16:54
Hi Lifebringer,



[...]
If they shut Assange up, other worthy news sources will follow.


You make some interesting observations. And yes, you are correct. If they shut Assange up, worthy news sources will, indeed, follow.



[...]
Julian should be left alone to do his job as he sees fit. So should others who wish to tell the people of the "secrets" that are worthy of publicity and exposure.

But if you leave him alone, when will the worthy news sources get a chance to follow?

:smow::typing:

ps: I mean, don't they have to shut him up before the worthy sources can follow?

Burke
31st December 2010, 16:58
We move forward with the next wave.
Hello zook

great post, love the video

I also love the way you talk about it...taking me through the mental steps of your pondering. It reminded me of a saying by Kahlil Gibran: “I discovered the secret of the sea in meditation upon the dewdrop.” I often get moments of great insight from unrelated things and find it marvelous how this happens.

I wasn't going to post anymore in this thread because I sorta felt like I highjacked it and was being too dominant so I figured best to leave as there was already a great deal of anger and stress focused here and thought it best. Seems calm now and you weren't mean to me in your last post so lets move on.

Currently I am in the middle of researching more into Matthew Bell and why only one source on the net has this quote from Assange

...and I found that I was wrong about this quote being on only one website

I found this:

Wanted by the CIA: The man who keeps no secrets
Julian Assange tells Matthew Bell why governments fear Wikileaks (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/wanted-by-the-cia-the-man-who-keeps-no-secrets-2029083.html)

published in the Independent a full day ahead of the Telegraph even though it is still the exact same article.

as much as I "knew" I was right, I ended up being wrong on this.

I still maintain neutrality on whether Assange said it. If Aldous posted on some thread that you hate the song "Good Morning Starshine" (lovely song BTW). I would come to you to confirm. Otherwise I would be proceeding on false assumption and could make some errors in my judgment of your musical tastes. It is just good researching to confirm and corroborate all evidence.

I do see this as evidence in its current state coming from Mathew Bell, but certainly not proof. That would of course have to come from Julian Assange himself. You may think me a supporter of Assange and wikileaks but I have dozens of theories I currently hold and ponder that include wikileaks as a tool for evil full of NWO folks progressing an agenda. I also hold and ponder dozens more that include them as a white-hat operation. Unfortunately due to my rigorous standards of research and deduction I simply don't have enough data either way. Yet tons of suspicion.

My entire push in this thread was to bring to light the difference between evidence and proof. That what I took from the Bell interview is enough to suspect, yet not enough to condemn regardless of my intuition or instincts. I am a fan of the scientific method but not of reductionism. I am also a big fan of relativism so truth for me is more fluid and context is doubly important.

In no way do I endorse wikileaks or Assange and probably have more suspicion than warm fuzzy feelings of butterflies and goodness. I also realize that the game we are watching is played dirty and there is betrayal and backstabbing often. Character assassination is widely employed as a damage control method and this Bell article, because of it being only one article, with no other corroborating material, it could be just that. But I certainly can't be sure.

Therefore I MUST consider character assassination as a possibility with this article. it certainly has done a great deal of damage to Assange. Yet I wont "assume" it is character assassination regardless of my intuition or instincts. I simply need more data and I see no harm in waiting for it to come because the world will not end or implode if I do not get it "in time".

And this is only one plot I am watching unfold. Probably like you, I spend hours a day, sometimes the whole day, just reading world news from international media across the globe, both main stream and alternative, all while I am researching topics that are involved in these plots. (climate change science, deep water drilling, religion, philosophy, alternative history etc) I follow many different plot lines that are entangled in shaping tomorrow. Most of the time I don't post because I just don't have the time unless something catches my interest enough for me to make time.

I simply felt that making the distinction between evidence and proof was interesting enough for me to make the time to post on this thread. Nothing against you as you were just the first to bring up the 911 point on this thread. It could have been anyone, but it was you.

I feel that somehow nearly the whole conspiracy world has turned against Assange over this one point. A world that thrives off youtubes, message boards, and blogs all devoted to seeking out fact over deception and truth over dis-information, yet in this instance no one else seems to be speaking up that this is just a quote and not a bona fied fact on the record coming from the man himself.

It is an important distinction in a world full of betrayal, sabotage, backstabbing cut-throats who profit from lying, death, and disease. I don't know who the bad guys or the good guys are even, much less their faces or names. Is Assange the bad guy? Is Mathew Bell the bad guy? Are they both bad guys? Who do I trust? David Icke? Bill Ryan? David Wilcock? William Cooper? Kerry Cassidy? Laura Knight Jadczyk? Barry King? Mathew Bell? Julian Assange? Bob Dean? Richard Hoagland? You? Myself? Some of these people point fingers at the others and call them dis-info agents here to confuse me. Each only have one perspective and none of them are identical.

I have to turn to the facts. So far the only fact I have on Assange's views on 911 is what Bell insists was said. I find this one bit of info too important, too divisive, to simply "trust" Matthew Bell. For all it is worth, it just may end up being that the man is disillusioned by the no planer, beam weapon, and other various "outside the box" 911 theories out there that conflict with the main themes and this quote could have been taken entirely out of context.

Another thing that bothers me is why hasn't he set the record straight? Whether he is a good guy or a bad guy, wouldn't he want the support of the conspiracy crowds who will continue to grow due to his activity? Wont this eventually cause a rift among people. Is he content that we who research are already asking questions and already suspect 911, thus appealing to the masses who mostly buy the official story and don't research and he doesn't want to alienate them by labeling himself "truther"? Or is he not speaking up because he is a shill and doesn't want the masses to suspect 911 was an inside job?

Mostly I have questions. There is not one accusation you made against him that i do not already consider to be a possibility. But I want to KNOW...not just believe.

I have had enough of "beliefs" as all they have done for me in the past is inspire or compel me to dismiss information that attacks those beliefs. I grow emotionally attached to beliefs and tend to try and protect them, thus stunting my growth as a being.

I TRY to learn free from beliefs and take it ALL in without judgment and store it in a multifaceted probability structure instead of a belief structure. By its very nature a belief system cannot include information contradictory to the beliefs making up the system (mostly) and I have found I have been learning much faster since I started doing this. Due to this I am able to construct an argument that could rival your own on why Assange is the "bad guy" (or a "good guy") because I have not tossed supporting facts out because of some emotional attachment to beliefs.

I am not saying it is the right way or the best way. It is just my way for now.

:hug:
- to the next wave-

Burke
31st December 2010, 17:59
If I may I would like to share a "theory in progress" with you guys that wikileaks plugs into. I may make my own thread on this sometime soon when I find the time.

There is (or has been) some chatter out there in the conspiracy circles about Obama being a white-hat. So much has happened that there are very few or maybe just one (Wilcock) person left out there who thinks this is true. I have not discounted it because I abhor dismissing ideas that haven't had time to mature. My dislike of belief has allowed me to continue to support this theory in my mind and continue to feed data to it.

There are many leaked "plans for world domination" out there (Iron Mountain Report, Protocols of Zion etc etc) and one of the things they all have in common us that this process must be slow and gradual enough that the masses do not awaken to what is being done to them. Another is that it must happen thru manipulation of more than one area of the sciences and arts. Media, medicine, law, academia, government etc etc

What if:

Obama is not in there battling it out fighting AGAINST the machine, but simply moving it along faster than it should be going to keep the masses in the dark. Since the plan relies on gradual steps, wouldn't speeding it up alert some folks? Possibly enough folks to disrupt the plan? Look at all the draconian crap that has come out of Washington in just two years. The other governments of the world are doing the same. Its almost too much, almost as if they are TRYING to piss us all off and incite rebellion. Health care, food bills, bailouts etc etc. These laws are coming out simultaneously from nearly all governments in the western world in one form or another.

What if Assange is just there to "speed up" the process of clamping down on the internet and attacking the first amendment. Just like Obama could be "speeding up" the release of draconian laws. Would that make him a white hat in a sense? What if there are others in other governments doing the same. I am seeing more people leave governments through resignation, indictments, and death than I can remember. I see people like Nigel Farage in the EU and I ask myself...what is that guy doing there? Why is he STILL there?

Sure there are many explanations and I embrace those too. They are out of time. 2012 is coming. They are out of money (um don't they print it?). There are tons more and all valid as a possibility.

but what if speeding it all up IS the resistance (or merely just one element of it), meant to wake up the masses because it is they who have the true power.

could wikileaks be speeding up the "end of information freedom" and "first amendment rights" JUST so we fight back while we still have time?

just one of my white-hat theories I keep up with for the Obama idea and noticed the wikileaks saga plugs nicely into it...among others

toodles

ponda
31st December 2010, 22:41
I'm sorry to say it, but this is far from ground breaking news. It might be for CNN or FOX, but to the european public it is absolutely not news.

BTW at the rate they are releasing the files, it will take 38 years to release everything... You think the public is going to hold it's breath for 38 years? Quite useful for TPTB if the public stays docile while waiting for Wikileaks to do the job, no?

JP Assange just signed a deal for 1,5Mill for his biography... Is that a publicity stunt or is that "fighting for government transparency"?

If they really wanted to make an impact they could have released much more damaging stuff I'm sure. They've had all the media pointing their way for the last few months, but only use that media attention to play hide & seek, real good strategy for a guy who is supposed to be "the head" of a militant organisation.

JP Assange a media crazed attention hogger? Well you judge. But I'm done with waiting for that guy to release good documents.

Just the fact that he calls the 911 TRUTH MOVEMENT "ANNOYING" should have got you all mad for god's sake -_-"

Well it might not be perceived as groundbreaking news for you but for many others it is opening their eyes a bit wider to what is really going on in the bigger picture.

Any important cable will be released shortly.It might be information overload if 250,000 cables were released simultaneously.

I would imagine that all of the $1.5m will be eaten up very quickly in needless legal costs and running costs for WikiLeaks.The costs for the swedish defense is already over $300,000.

Some of the releases have been damaging depending on your perspective.

His opinion of 911 is irrelevant as far as the release of inside information is concerned.

ponda
31st December 2010, 23:07
Heretic the chances are that we will never know the truth about many things including 911.We have to use our inner judgement and come to some sort of a decision or remain open minded.

It might soon be impossible for something similar to Wiki to emerge out of the big brother control system that is being built.This might be the last real chance for some truth about the governments and corporations to find its way into the greater awareness of the public.The information clampdown was already in progress well before Wiki came along.The speeding up of information censorship might be happening because the establishment has much to hide.The problem now for the establishment is that the ball is already in motion,the masses are waking up and change is coming.

kouby
31st December 2010, 23:19
His opinion of 911 is irrelevant as far as the release of inside information is concerned.

You don't consider 911 the biggest lie of the start of this century? Wouldn't that be a nice and effective way to start for an organisation promoting 'truth"?

I'm sure Wikileaks is full of people motivated by truth, but I've got real problems with that Assange character and how he seems to love being on the tube.

ponda
31st December 2010, 23:28
You don't consider 911 the biggest lie of the start of this century? Wouldn't that be a nice and effective way to start for an organisation promoting 'truth"?

I'm sure Wikileaks is full of people motivated by truth, but I've got real problems with that Assange character and how he seems to love being on the tube.

My guess is that no one on earth knows exactly what really happened on 911 so anyones opinion on it is likely to be not true.

Assange is the figurehead or spokesperson so he is going to be on the tube all of the time

norman
1st January 2011, 00:07
but what if speeding it all up IS the resistance (or merely just one element of it), meant to wake up the masses because it is they who have the true power.



That's an interesting concept there Heretic. As I watch all this stuff develop I often wonder why there isn't a 'light' force countering the 'dark' force.

We don't really know who or what is ultimately behind the agenda. From my own perspective, the higher it goes, the better. I have a harder time convincing myself we'll defeat a bunch of big time crooks with all the ace cards than I do convincing myself that they are being used in a game plan for a big showdown between light and dark.

Burke
1st January 2011, 01:36
First let me say that I have been making my posts in this thread from a perspective of defense for Assange because many of you guys are doing a great job of representing the "bad Assange" scenario. One I consider valid yet well covered, and in my eyes the samo samo pattern of behavior we have been watching unfold for decades from TPTB. So instead of reinforcing that even further I would rather play devils advocate and respond from less recognized viewpoints.


You don't consider 911 the biggest lie of the start of this century? Wouldn't that be a nice and effective way to start for an organisation promoting 'truth"?

I'm sure Wikileaks is full of people motivated by truth, but I've got real problems with that Assange character and how he seems to love being on the tube.

Lets go ahead and assume that he did say to Matthew Bell that the truthers annoy him. Let us also assume that he is a good guy as well.

Who does Julian Assange serve? Is he here to serve conspiracy theorist who are already convinced that the official story is bogus or does he serve Joe Six-pack?

What good would it have done for him to announce to the world that 911 was an inside job? What harm could it have caused him and wikileaks had he done so?

Does he offer his own insight into any of the conspiracies he releases documents about? Does he share his own conclusions drawn from the documents he has seen?

All I have heard him talk about is his philosophy, his past, how his operation functions, and why he is doing what he is doing. Then again I haven't watched everything and may have missed something.


Assange is the figurehead or spokesperson so he is going to be on the tube all of the time

Would he continue to have the same airtime if he had said 911 is the biggest conspiracy of our time?



That's an interesting concept there Heretic. As I watch all this stuff develop I often wonder why there isn't a 'light' force countering the 'dark' force.

I have given a great deal of thought on how these bad guys could be beaten and it is near a hopeless cause no matter what idea I have entertained from my studies of them. I have also tried to see it from the "guardian perspective" quite alot and have pondered "how do I wake up a planet". I have also tried to see it from the Illuminati perspective and pondered "how do I finish enslaving this planet".

TPTB have been doing a remarkable job of it, until recently. Now they seem to be messing up. Were I in their shoes I would not be doing what they are doing now, and I feel they are blowing it. So I consider there must be some powerful forces messing with them, causing them to make these mistakes. An internal war between the dark and the light could be just one example of such a force.

Assange said in some of his interviews and writings that the purpose behind releasing the info not only gives us plebs a glimpse of truth causing outrage and a demand for accountability. It also damages the communication ability of the national security state. They are not only having to deal with Assange, they are also having to scramble to find the source of the leaks, and potential future leaks. Tightening up security to the point that "communications" is no longer functioning as efficient as it once was, and during end game is a crucial blow. Paranoia will destroya.

Apply this idea coupled with white-hats in key places accelerating the agenda, forcing a need for even more communication between the bad guys to compensate for the setbacks. Also consider that most of these moves are "event driven" and not calender driven. You could create the perfect storm, where out of touch (due to breakdowns in communication) Illuminati members function as they have been programmed to since birth to do certain tasks at certain times based on certain events. How can the good guys beat the bad guys when the deck is stacked? Knowing how the cards are marked and using their own autonomous trauma created machines against them.

But humanity itself is the wild card and in this theory, all of this effort is to give humanity a chance to play a fair game by understanding the players and their tells. To even the odds. It is still up to us to end the game as winners or losers.

I see this as a rough outline of a possibility. One of many, all with interchangeable variations.

interesting times

Burke
1st January 2011, 03:31
Heretic the chances are that we will never know the truth about many things including 911. We have to use our inner judgement and come to some sort of a decision or remain open minded.

you could very well be right

so what to do, judge or remain open minded?

can we do both?

what results can we hope to attain by doing either or both that could have an effect on the outcome?

how can we make a difference?

ponda
1st January 2011, 03:44
you could very well be right

so what to do, judge or remain open minded?

can we do both?

what results can we hope to attain by doing either or both that could have an effect on the outcome?

how can we make a difference?


Say take 911 for example.

We could have a good look at it and then come to a conclusion that there is a lot more to it than meets the eye.That the official version of what took place could very well be incorrect.That we will probably never get to the bottom of it completely and so the best thing to do might be to take note of it and then move on a little bit more awake and with the knowledge that things aren't quite what they seem and that many people perceive our reality differently.

Burke
1st January 2011, 03:49
ZW8TlrYhBxk

Happy New Years!

I'm off to celebrate!

loveandgratitude
1st January 2011, 04:41
.
Julian should be left alone to do his job as he sees fit. So should others who wish to tell the people of the "secrets" that are worthy of publicity and exposure.[/QUOTE]

Every person has the right to access all expression of knowledge, opinion and creativity
and be able to express their thoughts publicly within the limits of law

This freedom of access is essential to the health and development of a democratic society
however information cannot be limited by any group , individual or even the majority

Upholding of intellectual freedom can also at times put one in the position of supporting points of view that someone else does not believe and this forum supplies a forum for a open and public exchange of contradictory views, to make available materials that support a wide range of views

When a forum present a topic that some people might feel uncomfortable viewing and make the reader angry, one need to address the anger not the messenger. Anger is the first sign of breaking through propaganda by the mind control media, directing you in the path they want you to go. It is our job to question, research and report on Julian Assange, if there are not pieces of the puzzle fitting together or missing....why? We are the why?

witchy1
2nd January 2011, 03:35
I was dissapointed to read this, but am sure Uncle Zook will not be surprised..........


"Wikileaks’ Assange’s Lawyer has connections to Rothschilds (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=16166)

By wmw_admin (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?author=1) on December 15, 2010

‘Secret Agent’ via Wake Up from Your Slumber – December 4, 2010
It has emerged recently that Assange is in the UK since October which means that all those three successive and massive US documents “leaks” have been orchestrated by him from his secret residence in the UK.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mark-stephens-285x300.jpg (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/mark-stephens.jpg) Mark Stephens

So why is this done from the UK. The answer is because that is where he is the closest to his masters, the super powerful dynastic Rothschild banking and zionist family.
And now here comes the proof that this is indeed the case:
Assange’s lawyer is the prominent Mark Stephens whose law firm Finers Stephens Innocent is legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust (http://www.waddesdon.org.uk/plan_your_visit/history.htm) which is concerned with the “maintenance, improvement and payment of certain of the outgoings in respect of Waddesdon Manor (http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/waddesdon-manor-aylesbury-gb533.jpg)(Rothschild’s most prestigious property in the UK) in the Vale of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.”
The Wadesdon Trust’s board of trustees is chaired by the Queen”s former Private Secretary Lord Fellowes and has three Rothschild family members as trustees, Lord (Jacob) Rothschild, Lady Rothschild (his wife) and Beth Matilda Rothschild. It is domiciled 14 St James’s Place in London which is also the London address of Lord Jacob Rothschild and his high profile wealth management business St. James’s Place Group (formerly J. Rothschild Assurance Group).
http://www.charityperformance.com/charity-details.php?id=17426 (http://www.charityperformance.com/charity-details.php?id=17426)
Besides that, and as a side note, Mark Stephens law firm Finers Stephens Innocent appears to have a strong focus in providing tax avoidance advisory services to mega-rich customers (see Michael Lewis and Simon Malkiel particularly) such as, I suspect, Sir Philip Green who advises the government on how to recover the mega money his and his peers avoid to pay in taxes thanks to the services of Finers Stephens Innocent’s lawyers by squeezing public services, etc….
http://www.fsilaw.com/ (http://www.fsilaw.com/)


In summary Assange’s lawyer is a high profile establishment lawyer whose law firm works for the Rothschilds.
It seems to me that this is proof enough that Assange is a Rothschild puppet and that Wikileaks is a Rothschild operation."

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=16166 (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=16166)

ponda
2nd January 2011, 03:45
It seems to me that this is proof enough that Assange is a Rothschild puppet and that Wikileaks is a Rothschild operation.


Talk about a hanging judge.It might be proof enough for some but not most.

So going by this reasoning if JA got a lawyer who had connections to 'name your connection' then he would then be their puppet.So every client of this lawyer is a rothschild puppet ?

witchy1
2nd January 2011, 07:51
Hi Ponda, just for clarity - that is the entire cut and paste from the site.............not my own opinion (In case you were wondering) should have had parenthasis around it probably:)

Burke
2nd January 2011, 08:48
As distasteful as I am of the controllers, if I were the defendant in a trial that could end with me being "Bubba's non-consensual roommate" then I would be thrilled to have one of Rothschild's lawyers on my side in a courtroom.

On the other hand, it is kinda icky isn't it? Makes one wonder what "favors" might be exchanged or "fees levied" for such a defense. Would that make the Bubba option the moral high ground worthy of consideration for most people?

ponda
2nd January 2011, 10:15
Hi Ponda, just for clarity - that is the entire cut and paste from the site.............not my own opinion (In case you were wondering) should have had parenthasis around it probably:)


Yes witchy1 i was replying to the article and not yourself.I probably should of made that clearer myself.

cheers

¤=[Post Update]=¤


As distasteful as I am of the controllers, if I were the defendant in a trial that could end with me being "Bubba's non-consensual roommate" then I would be thrilled to have one of Rothschild's lawyers on my side in a courtroom.

On the other hand, it is kinda icky isn't it? Makes one wonder what "favors" might be exchanged or "fees levied" for such a defense. Would that make the Bubba option the moral high ground worthy of consideration for most people?

Yes i agree it is a 'bit' dodgy but we don't know the circumstances how JA came to have that particular lawyer.If JA is a knowing puppet of the rothschilds then they aren't doing a very good job of hiding it are they ?

chelmostef
2nd January 2011, 11:32
Heretic - Lets go ahead and assume that he did say to Matthew Bell that the truthers annoy him. Let us also assume that he is a good guy as well.
Who does Julian Assange serve? Is he here to serve conspiracy theorist who are already convinced that the official story is bogus or does he serve Joe Six-pack?
What good would it have done for him to announce to the world that 911 was an inside job? What harm could it have caused him and wikileaks had he done so?

This is how I am kind of thinking about assage that if he wanted to engage with the mainstream media then the facts surrounding 9-11 are irrelevant because he would be shunned by propaganda machine. By dismissing 9-11 he has given himself a plate form to speak to the largest most uneducated majority - sheep for the want of a better word, the ones that cannot see simple facts in front of them.

I also think that 9-11 is no longer a conspiracy but has almost come to a point where it is excepted that the official version is not true. Ergo 9-11 is not a conspiracy its a fact. From this stance point 9-11 is irrelevant compared to the rest of the hidden secrets the sheep are not supplied with.

9-11 has/is being exposed with or without assages help so its irrelevant to him. And could in fact be a clever move to get him in a place were he can release what we all are waiting for...

That is a way Assage could possibly be white hat but we will not know for sure untill all the info is released.

Same with obama out of the choices he was the lest damaging can you imagine were we would be if hilary clinton was at the helm..... What better place to fight the system than from within that is a way we can fight them and this means you have to engage with them, be excepted/connected with them but to expose them for what they truly are.

chelmostef
2nd January 2011, 11:46
Who better to dish the dirt than Mark Stephens?

Could one not see this as a actually a good thing? Lets see what happens. Not judge to hastily, focus on what we would like to see and NOT what we expect to see.

Let's manifest what we really would like to happen. And make it so.

StephenW11UK
2nd January 2011, 19:48
A couple of evenings ago when tempers here were becoming a bit frayed, I started to feel quite angry myself at some of those with opinions that opposed my own. I don't like feeling an angry. It's not a pleasant space to be in and, besides, I'm well aware that anger is on the same vibrational level as fear, hatred and insecurity, which is just where the powers behind the matrix want us to be, and to remain.

Added to that was my experience over the years that, when in a discussion I get angry, it's a sign to me that I'm not at all sure of the claims I'm making. So I began by looking seriously at zookumar's comment (#3): "His [Assange's] views on 9/11/2001 alone betrays him. There is absolutely zero intellectual and moral accommodation, in 2010, for any 40-year-old to hold that 9/11/2001 was a false conspiracy. Period." - something I fully agreed with.

Then I thought about the quote (#24): the powers to be......... murdoch ........ just signed a book deal with him.......????????????????????????? followed by Ponda's response (#17): So now he's in bed with murdoch !!!!! Whatever next ????? Laughter certainly can lift the spirits!

I had also been thinking that, if no cables surfaced to embarrass Zionist Israel and Mossad, I'd be looking for a satisfying answer as to why.

Gradually I found myself calming down, more at ease with this whole situation. And, and more importantly from my own point of view, I now felt kindly-disposed towards those who had drawn forth my anger. In other words, by letting go I had done what the next day I discovered loveandgratitude was recommending
(#78): "When a forum present a topic that some people might feel uncomfortable viewing and make the reader angry, one need to address the anger not the messenger. Anger is the first sign of breaking through propaganda by the mind control media, directing you in the path they want you to go. It is our job to question, research and report on Julian Assange, if there are not pieces of the puzzle fitting together or missing....why? We are the why?"

Thanks to our discussion together I believe I'm quite a bit more open-minded than I was, both generally and in relation to JA. I'd like to add, though, that I have no difficulty in conceiving of a situation where, if Murdoch were the owner of the Belfast Telegraph, he could have manoeuvred some henchman into creating from nothing the Irish newspaper report, together with evidence to support it.

loveandgratitude
3rd January 2011, 05:22
EXTRACTS FROM AN INTERVIEW WITH JOHN YOUNG ABOUT WIKILEAKS
by Declan McCullagh is the chief political correspondent for CNET

Young, a 74-year-old architect who lives in Manhattan, publishes a document-leaking Web site called Cryptome.com that predates Wikileaks by over a decade.
Cryptome's history of publicizing leaks--while not yielding to pressure to remove them--is what led Young to be invited to join Wikileaks before its launch over three years ago. He also agreed to be the public face of WIKILEAKS by listing his name on the domain name registration.

So when other Wikileaks founders started to talk about the need to raise $5 million and complained that an initial round of publicity had affected "our delicate negotiations with the Open Society Institute and other funding bodies," Young says, he resigned from the effort. Some Q & A from John Young.

You had a falling-out with the other Wikileaks founders?
Young: Yes. But it was over this: someone said that the initial goal was $5 million. That caught my attention. One, because I think the type of stuff I was going to publish, you should never do it for money. Only because that contaminates the credibility and it turns it into a business opportunity where there's great treachery and lying going on.
And it will contaminate Wikileaks. It always does. In fact, that's the principal means by which noble endeavors are contaminated, the money trail. That's pretty obvious. I happen to think that amateur stuff is better than paid stuff.
So if you've been publishing sensitive government information for so long, why have you not had the same encounters that Wikileaks has had? [Ed. Note: Wikileaks has claimed its representatives have been harassed by U.S. government agents.]
I don't think they've had any encounters. That's bogus. But that's okay. I know a lot of people who talk about how the government's after them. It's a fairly well-worn path. You know it from your own field. It remains to be seen whether any of this stuff holds up or not.

Some extracts from a radio interview with Alex Jones. With John Young.

One important point is this - It was CASS SUNSTEIN OBAMA's main confidant - was quoted in the WASHINGTONPOST in an editorial in 2007 opening admitting to pose as an activist to bring down the net. He said that the best way to sabotage the internet and impose controls would be to pose as a freedom fighter or activists and leak sensitive documents to cause an outcry from the public. This same person - CASS SUNSTEIN was the very one and only to introduce WIKILEAKS. This should ring alarm bells. H e said that all you would have to do is to fund the opponent. Media supports the info and then hype it up with suspense.

NOW this legislation is coming.

John Young said he was succored punched and used as a puppet by Wikileaks to use his name on the domain. Once there was talk about raising $5million in 6 months, alarm bells started ringing. Then when large amount of money stated coming in he resigned.

He realized that this was a business operation and not a public operation and it turned out to be so.

Soros and the CIA often use public benefit as a cover. Churches etc do this. As a way of making good money. They pretend that they are going bankrupt and the money flows in. This is a bankruptcy scam.

John registered the URL for Wikileaks in Dec 2007 and resigned about 4 months later.

John says that the point of Wikileaks is to test public reaction by revealing low level information that is setting up various people and countries. Also to note that just because A Document is marked TOP SECRET - does not mean they are....remember Weapons of mass destruction. This is neocon progranda.

Government always recruits hackers and then give them good jobs. Assange was in trouble with the Australian government and seemed to squeeze his way out without a prison sentence.

John states that the pattern of a PSYC OP is called – Multi Stranded Operation. This means teasing the public every now and then......with the promise of more coming. And more being released in timing with other things happening. A Good distraction. This is the pattern...building the suspense

If you are interested in finding out who is behind Wiki leaks the names of the whole gang is on this list.....and just how long this has been going on. The web name is "Cypherpunks.com" The list of many notable people, some very wealthy got this site up in the 1990's. Most of the people listed are much older than Assange and at this a lot longer. This is a group of extremely intelligent, engineers, scientists, astute political people. Then Assange come aboard in 1995. and become a member of www.cypherpunks.com
This list should be studied. John Young name appears here.

Most importantly......Cypherpunks was created not as an organization, that cannot be hacked, infiltrated or taken down. It is a concept, an aspiration and something the government cannot be take down. link to wikipedia list of names for cyphrpunks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypherpunk#Noteworthy_cypherpunks

NOW Wikileaks was set up on this concept and it cannot be taken down, as it will spring up again another way. Cyperpunks built a system that hackers and computer people can pump out information and nobody can stop it. Julian Assange stated that to take down Wikileaks the government would have to take down the whole internet. BUT as this is a concept it cannot be destroyed.

John states that
Wikileaks was co-opted into releasing documents for money. Called a government contract .
Wikileaks is a theater, a testing system for public reaction
Wikileaskwill release big bomb shells soon. This is the pattern. Each becoming more shocking, build you up and over whelm you.

Some info coming will be about popular themes. -
The Vatican
Billionaire bribing politicians
The tax agency
War Plans
Weapon of Mass Destruction

They will be using the internet to create havoc and conflict.

Links -
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/december2010/101210_wikileaks_founder.htm

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

loveandgratitude
4th January 2011, 04:54
IN POLITICS NOTHING HAPPENS BY ACCIDENT
An expose by Global Research on Julian Assange

LINK - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/message/50246



Global Research - Editor's Note


Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor.*Our own website Global Research has provided extensive coverage of the Wikileaks data banks and their implications, particularly with regard to US-NATO war crimes. *
The Wikileaks Project is heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media censorship, without examining its organizational structure.*

A distinction should be made between the Wikileaks data banks, which constitute a valuable source of information in their own right, and the mechanisms whereby the leaks, used as source material by the corporate media,*are transformed into news.*

Wikileaks from the outset has collaborated closely with several mainstream media.

This article by Julie Lévesque*focusses on the nature and organizational structures*of the Wikleak project.**

“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” --Franklin D. Roosevelt


After the publication of a series of confirmations rather than revelations, there are some crucial unanswered questions regarding the nature and organizational structure of Wikileaks.

Shrouded in secrecy, the now famous whistleblowing site and its director Julian Assange are demanding "transparency" from governments and corporations around the world while failing to provide some basic information pertaining to*Wikileaks as an organization.*
*
Who is Julian Assange?
In the introduction to the book Underground: Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier (1997), by Julian Assange and Suelette Dreyfus,*Assange begins with the following quotes:
*
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." -- Oscar Wilde
"What is essential is invisible to the eye." -- Antoine De Saint-Exupery

From the start,*Assange states that he undertook the research for the book; however, he fails to mention that he was actually*one of the hackers analyzed in the book, going by the name of Mendax, a Latin word for “lying, false...”.

Although we cannot confirm that*the*above quotes referred to him, they nonetheless suggest that Assange, at the time, was hiding his true identity.
We know very little about the cryptographer Julian Assange. He is indeed very cryptic when it comes to revealing who he is and where he worked prior to the Wikileaks project.*On the list of board members published previously by Wikileaks, we can read that Julian Assange:
*
* has “attended 37 schools and 6 universities”, none of which are mentioned by name;
* is “Australia's most famous ethical computer hacker”. A court case from 1996 cited abundantly in the mainstream press is available on the Australasian Legal Information Institute. Contrary to all the other cases listed on the afore mentioned link, the full text of Assange’s case is not available;
* “in the first prosecution of its type... [he]*defended a case in the supreme court for his role as the editor of an activist electronic magazine”. The name of the magazine, the year of the prosecution, the country where it took place are not mentioned;
* allegedly founded “'Pickup' civil rights group for children”. No information about this group seems to be available, other than in reports related to Wikileaks. We don’t know if it still exists, where it is located and what are its activities.
* *“studied mathematics, philosophy and neuroscience”. We don’t know where he studied or what his credentials are;
* “has been a subject of several books and documentaries”. If so, why not mention at least one of them?

One could indeed argue that Assange wishes to remain anonymous in order to protect himself, the whistleblowers and/or the members of his organization. On the other hand, he cannot realistically expect people to trust him blindly if they do not*know who he really is.

The most interesting thing about Julian Assange is that his former employers remain unknown. His bio states that he is a “prolific programmer and consultant for many open-source projects and his software is used by most large organizations and is inside every Apple computer”. Was he working*freelance? Who did he work for?
]
An old email exchange from 1994 between Julian Assange and NASA award winner Fred Blonder raises questions regarding Assange’s professional activities prior to launching Wikileaks. This exchange is available on*the website of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
*
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 03:59:19 +0100
From: Julian Assange <proff@...>
To: Fred Blonder <fred@...>
Cc: karl@..., Quentin.Fennessy@...,
******* fred@..., mcn@..., bugtraq@...
In-Reply-To: <199411171611.LAA04177@...>
On Thu, 17 Nov 1994, Fred Blonder wrote: [EXCERPT]
*
> ******** From: Julian Assange <proff@...>
>
> ******************* .
> ******** Of course, to make things really interesting, we could have n files,
> ******** comprised of n-1 setuid/setgid scripts and 1 setuid/setgid binary, with
> ******** each script calling the next as its #! argument and the last calling the
> ******** binary. ;-)
>
> The '#!' exec-hack does not work recursively. I just tried it under SunOs 4.1.3
> It generated no diagnostics and exited with status 0, but it also didn't execute
> the target binary....

> Proff
*
Julian Assange's*e-mail to Fred Blonder was*sent to an address ending with “nasirc.hq.nasa.gov”, namely NASA.*The e-mail was also sent*(cc) to Michael C. Neuman, a computer*expert at**Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), New Mexico, a premier national security research institution, under the jurisdiction of the US Department of Energy.*

At the time, Fred Blonder was working on a cyber security programme called “NASA Automated Systems Incident Response Capability” (NASIRC), for which he won the NASA Group Achievement Award in 1995. A report from June 2, 1995 explains:

NASIRC has significantly elevated agency-wide awareness of serious evolving threats to NASA's computer/network systems through on-going threat awareness briefings and in-depth technical workshop sessions and through intercenter communications and cooperation relating to the responsive and timely sharing of incident information and tools and techniques. (Valerie L. Thomas, “NASIRC Receives NASA Group Award”, National Space Science Data Center, June 2, 1995)

Is there any relation*between Assange’s prosecution for hacking in 1996 and this exchange?
The judge warned that if Assange had not had such a disrupted childhood he would have gone to jail for up to 10 years.

Was he collaborating with these institutions?

For example, in his e-mail,*Assange updates Blonder*on his work, referring to*“other platforms I have not as yet tested”, seemingly indicating that he was collaborating with the NASA employee. One thing we can confirm is that Julian Assange was in communication with people working for NASA and the Los Alamos Lab in the 1990s.*

Who's Who at*Wikileaks? The Members of the Advisory Board
*Here are some interesting facts about several*members listed in 2008 on the Wikileaks advisory board, including**organizations to which they belong or have links to.*

Philip Adams:
*Philip Adams, among other things, “held key posts in Australian governmental media administration” (Wikileaks' Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008), chaired the Australia Council and contributed to The Times,*The Financial Times in London*and The New York Times. Confirmed by several reports,* he is the representative of the International Committee of Index on Censorship. It is worth mentioning that Wikileaks was awarded the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression award. (Philip Adams, Milesago.com)

Adams worked as a presenter for ABC (Australia) Radio's Late Night Live and as columnist for The Australian since the 1960s. [B][B]The Australian is owned by News Corporation, a property of Rupert Murdoch, member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Adams also “chairs the Advisory Board of the Centre for the Mind at Sydney University and the Australian National University”. CFR member Michael Spence also serves on this board and Rupert Murdoch’s son, Lachlan Murdoch, has served as well until 2001. The 2008 Distinguished Fellow of the Center for the Mind was former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has faced a slew of accusations for war crimes. Does Adams have conflicting allegiances:*serving on the*advisory board of the Wikileaks organization whose mandate is to expose war crimes, yet at the same time sitting on another board which honors an accused war criminal.
*
CJ Hinke:
*CJ Hinke, “writer, academic, activist, has lived in Thailand since 1989 where he founded Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT) in 2006 to campaign against pervasive censorship in Thai society.”*(Wikileaks' Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008)* FACT is part of Privacy International, which includes among others on its Steering Committee or advisory board, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Index on Censorship.
*
In the US, Privacy International is “administered through the Fund for Constitutional Government in Washington DC.”(About Privacy International, 16 December 2009).

One of the board members of this fund is Steven Aftergood, who wrote one of the first articles on Wikileaks before the website was even functional. In a report from Technology Daily dated January 4, 2007, it is stated that “Wikileaks recently invited Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy researcher at the Federation of American Scientists [FAS], to serve on its advisory board.”**

Ben Laurie:*
“’WikiLeaks allegedly has an advisory board, and allegedly I'm a member of it... I don't know who runs it...’ Laurie says his only substantive interaction with the group was when Assange approached him to help design a system that would protect leakers' anonymity.” (David Kushner, Inside Wikileaks' Leak Factory, Mother Jones, 6 April, 2010)**
This article appeared in Mother Jones in April 2010. An article of the New York Daily News dated December 2010* quotes Ben Laurie as follows:*“‘Julian's a smart guy and this is an interesting tactic,’ said Ben Laurie, a London-based computer security expert who has advised WikiLeaks.”*

Despite his denial of being an advisor to Wikileaks, his name still appears on the list of advisory board members,*according to reports.*It is also worth noting that Ben Laurie is a “Director of Security for The Bunker Secure Hosting, where he has worked since 1984 and is responsible for security, cryptography and network design.” He is also a Director of Open Rights Group,*funded by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd and the Open Society Foundation.

Chinese and Tibetan Dissidents on the Advisory Board

Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang:

Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, a “Tibetan exile & activist” is a former President of the Washington Tibet Association, and was a member of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. In July of this year he was appointed by the Governor of Washington State to the State Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs. (A Tibetan Appointed to the Washington State Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs, Tibetan Association of Washington, 17 July 2010)*

Wang Youcai

Wang Youcai co-founded the Chinese Democracy Party and is another leader of the Tienanmen Square protests. Imprisoned for “conspiring to overthrow the Government of China... he was exiled in 2004 under international political pressure, especially from the United States. He is also a “member of Chinese Constitutional Democratic Transition Research and a member of the Coordinative Service Platform of the China Democracy Party”*(Wikileaks' Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008)

Xiao Qiang:*
Xiao Qiang, is one of the Chinese dissidents listed on the Wikileaks board. He “ is the Director of the Berkeley China Internet Project...[He] became a full time human rights activist after the Tienanmen Massacre in 1989... and is currently vice-chair of the Steering Committee of the World Movement for Democracy”, according to Wikileaks’ description. He received the MacArthur Fellowship from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation in 2001 and is a commentator for Radio Free Asia. (Wikilieaks' Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008)*

Xiao Qiang is also the "founder and*publisher of China Digital Times" (Biographies, National Endowment for Democracy), which is a grantee of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) (Directives from China's Ministry of Truth on Liu Xiaobo winning Nobel, Democracy Digest, October 8, 2010).*
*
The Steering Committee of the World Movement for Democracy is an initiative of the Washington, DC-based NED. (World Movement for Democracy). In 2008, Xiao Qiang was part of a*discussion*panel intitled "Law Rights and Democracy in China: Perspectives and Leading Advocates",*held by NED*before the Democracy Award Ceremony. (2008 NED Democracy Award Honors Heroes of Human Rights and Democracy in China, National Endowment for Democracy, June 17, 2008). ***
*
Radio Free Asia is funded by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) which describes itself as a body that “encompasses all U.S. civilian international broadcasting, including the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio and TV Martí, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN)—Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television.” Eight of its nine members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate; the ninth is the Secretary of State, who serves ex officio”.*(Broadcasting Board of Governors)*
*
RFE/RL no longer hides its covert origins: “Initially, both RFE and RL were funded principally by the U.S. Congress through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)... In 1971, all CIA involvement ended and thereafter RFE and RL were funded by Congressional appropriation through the Board for International Broadcasting (BIB) and after 1995 the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). (A Brief History of RFE/RL)*
*
Interestingly, in a report from 2002, the CFR suggested “creating a Public Diplomacy Coordinating Structure (PDCS) to help define communications strategies and streamline public diplomacy structures. ‘In many ways, the PDCS would be similar to the National Security Council’... PDCS members would include the secretaries of State, Defense, Treasury and Commerce, as well as the director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and BBG chairman”, a suggestion officially objected by the BBG “to preserve the journalistic integrity.” (BBG Expresses Concern With Report Recommendations on U.S. International Braodcasting, 31 July 2002)
Wang Dan:
Among the Chinese dissidents once listed on the board is Wang Dan. He was a leader of the Tienanmen Square democracy movement, which “earned him the top spot on China’s list of ‘21 Most Wanted Beijing Student Leaders’.” He was imprisoned for his subversive activities and “exiled in 1998 under international political pressure to the United States.” (Wikilieaks' Avisory Board, Wikileaks.org, 27 March 2008)*
*
He is chairman of the Chinese Constitutional Reform Association, and sits on the editorial board of Beijing Spring, a magazine funded by NED, the “chief democracy-promoting foundation” according to an article by Judith Miller in The New York Times. One of the founders of NED was quoted as saying “A lot of what we [NED] do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” (quoted in William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, 2000, p. 180).

In 1998, Wang Dan was granted the NED's Democracy Award "for representing a peaceful alternative to achieve democracy and for [his] courage and steadfastness in the cause of democracy". (1998 Democracy Award honors Heroes of Human Rights and Democracy in China, National Endowment for Democracy)**
*

The Battle for "Transparency"

In 2007, Wikileaks described itself as an “uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis.” Its priority? “[E]xposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.” Like the advisory board member list, this description no longer appears on Wikileaks’ website. The organization also claimed to be “founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.” (Wikileaks.org, 17 December 2007)
*
In the currently available description, the reference to the Chinese dissidents and the origins of the other members has been removed. Wikileaks rather puts the emphasis on not being a covert operation.**

Assange*encourages blind faith in Wikileaks as he puts a lot of emphasis on the trustworthiness of his*opaque organization. In the words of Assange:**
“Once something starts going around and being considered trustworthy in a particular arena, and you meet someone and they say ‘I heard this is trustworthy,’ then all of a sudden it reconfirms your suspicion that the thing is trustworthy. So that’s why brand is so important, just as it is with anything you have to trust.”(Andy Greenberg, An Interview with Wikileaks' Julian Assange, Forbes, 29 October, 2010, emphasis added)**

"People should understand that WikiLeaks has proven to be arguably the most trustworthy new source that exists, because we publish primary source material and analysis based on that primary source material," Assange told CNN. "Other organizations, with some exceptions, simply are not trustworthy."(The secret life of Julian Assange, CNN, 2 December 2010, emphasis added)
While Wikileaks no longer discloses the names of the members of its advisory board, nor does it reveal*its sources of funding, we have to trust it because according to its founder Julian Assange, it “has proven to be the most trustworthy news source that exists”.
Moreover, if we follow Assange’s assertion that there are only a few media organizations which can be considered trustworthy, we must assume that those are the ones which were selected by Wikileaks to act as "partners" in the release and editing of the leaks, including The New York Times, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, El Paìs, Le Monde.*

Yet The New York Times, which employs members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) including Wikileaks’ collaborator David E. Sanger, has proven more than once to be a propaganda tool for the US government, the most infamous example being the Iraqi WMD narrative promoted by Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller.*
In an interview, Assange indicates that Wikileaks chose a variety of media to avoid the use of leaks for propaganda purposes.**It is important to note that although these media might be owned by different groups and have different editorial policies, they are without exception news entities controlled by major Western media corporations.**
*A much better way to avoid the use of leaks for disinformation purposes would have been to work with media from different regions of the world (e.g. Asia, Latin America, Middle East) as well as establish partnership agreements with the alternative media.*By*working primarily with media organizations from NATO countries, Wikileaks has chosen to submit its leaks to one single "worldview", that of the West.

As a few critics of Wikileaks have noted, the Wikileaks project brings to mind the "recommendations" of Cass Sunstein, heads the Obama*White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Sunstein is the author of an authoritative Harvard Law School essay entitled “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures”.*As outlined by Daniel Tencer in Obama Staffer Calls for "Cognitive Infiltration" of " 9/11 Conspiracy Groups":

Sunstein “argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via ‘chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine’ those groups”.

Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public — the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.

Sunstein, whose article focuses largely on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, suggests that the government “enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts.” (emphasis added)

Links to The Intelligence Community

Wikleaks feels the need to reassure public opinion that it has no contacts with the intelligence community. Ironically, it also sees the need to define the activities of the intelligence agencies and compare them to those of Wikileaks:*

"1.5 The people behind WikiLeaks
WikiLeaks is a project of the Sunshine Press. It's probably pretty clear by now that WikiLeaks is not a front for any intelligence agency or government despite a rumour to that effect. This rumour was started early in WikiLeaks' existence, possibly by the intelligence agencies themselves. WikiLeaks is an independent global group of people with a long standing dedication to the idea of a free press and the improved transparency in society that comes from this. The group includes accredited journalists, software programmers, network engineers, mathematicians and others.

To determine the truth of our statements on this, simply look at the evidence. By definition, intelligence agencies want to hoard information. By contrast, WikiLeaks has shown that it wants to do just the opposite. Our track record shows we go to great lengths to bring the truth to the world without fear or favour."*(Wikileaks.org, emphasis added)


"Is Wikileaks a CIA front?

Wikileaks is not a front for the CIA, MI6, FSB or any other agency. Quite the opposite actually. […] By definition spy agencies want to hide information. We want to get it out to the public." (Wikileaks.org, 17, December 2007, emphasis added)*

Quite true. But by definition, a covert operation always pretends to be something it is not, and never claims to be what it is.

Wikileaks' Entourage. Who Supports Wikileaks? **

The people gravitating around Wikileaks have connections and/or are affiliated to a number of establishment organizations,*major corporate foundations and charities.*In the Wikileaks’ leak published by John Young, a correspondence dated January 4, 2007,*points to Wikileaks' exchange with Freedom House:

"We are looking for one or two initial advisory board member from FH who may advise on the following:

*1. the needs of FH as consumer of leaks exposing business and political corruption
*2. the needs for sources of leaks as experienced by FH
*3. FH recommendations for other advisory board members
*4. general advice on funding, coalition building and decentralized operations and political framing*
These positions will initially be unpaid, but we feel the role may be of significant interest to FH."

The request for funding from various organizations triggered some doubt*among Wikileaks collaborators.

John Young became* very sceptical concerning the Wikileaks project*specifically with regard to the initial fund-raising goal of 5*million dollars, the contacts with elite organzations including Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy and the alleged millions of documents:
*
"Announcing a $5 million fund-raising goal by July will kill this effort. It makes WL appear to be a Wall Street scam.

This amount could not be needed so soon except for suspect purposes.

I'd say the same about the alleged 1.1 million documents ready for leaking. Way too many to be believable without evidence. I don't believe the number. So far, one document, of highly suspect provenance."

Young finally quit the organization on January 7, 2007. His final words: “Wikileaks is a fraud... working for the enemy”.
Four years after its creation, we still don’t know who funds the whistleblower site.*

Wikileaks, Hackers, and*“The First Cyberwar”

The shady circumstances around Julian Assange’s arrest for*“sex crimes” have triggered what some mainstream media have called the “first cyberwar”. The Guardian for instance, another Wikileaks partner, warns us with this shocking title: “WikiLeaks backlash: The first global cyber war has begun, claim hackers".

Some people suspect that this is a false flag operation intended to control the Internet.

It is no secret that hackers are often recruited by governmental authorities for cyber security purposes. Peiter Zatko a.k.a. “Mudge” is one of them. Here is an excerpt of a Forbes interview with Assange regarding his connection to Peiter Zatko:

Assange:Yeah, I know Mudge. He’s a very sharp guy.

Greenberg: Mudge is now leading a project at the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to find a technology that can stop leaks, which seems pretty relative [sic] to your organization. Can you tell me about your past relationship with Mudge?

Assange: Well, I... no comment.

Greenberg: Were you part of the same scene of hackers? When you were a computer hacker, you must have known him well.

Assange: We were in the same milieu. I spoke with everyone in that milieu.

Greenberg: What do you think of his current work to prevent digital leaks inside of organizations, a project called Cyber Insider Threat or Cinder?

Assange: I know nothing about it.

Peiter Zatko is an expert**in cyber warfare. He worked for BBN Technolgies (a subsidiary of Raytheon) with engineers “who perform leading edge research and development to protect Department of Defense data... Mr. Zatko is focused on anticipating and protecting against the next generation of information and network security threats to government and commercial networks.” (Peiter "Mudge" Zatko, Information Security Expert Who Warned that Hackers "Could Take Down the Internet in 30 Minutes" Returns to BBN Technologies, Business Wire, 1 February 2005, emphasis added)

In another Forbes interview, we learn that Mr. Zatko is “a lead cybersecurity researcher at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA], the mad-scientist wing of the Pentagon.” His project “aims to rid the world of digital leaks”. (Forbes, emphasis added)

There also seems to be a connection between Zatko and former hacker Jacob Appelbaum, a Wikileaks spokesperson. Zatko and Appelbaum were purportedly part of a hacker group called Cult of the Dead Cow.
Appelbaum currently works for the Tor Project, a United States Naval Research Laboratory initiative. The sponsors of that project listed on its website are:
NLnet Foundation (2008-2009), Naval Research Laboratory (2006-2010), an anonymous North American ISP (2009-2010),*provided up to $100k. Google (2008-2009), Google Summer of Code (2007-2009), Human Rights Watch, Torfox (2009) and Shinjiru Technology (2009-2010) gave in turn up to $50k.
Past sponsors includes: Electronic Frontier Foundation (2004-2005), DARPA and ONR via Naval Research Laboratory (2001-2006), Cyber-TA project (2006-2008), Bell Security Solutions Inc (2006), Omidyar Network Enzyme Grant (2006), NSF via Rice University (2006-2007).
Zatko and Assange know each other. Jacob Appelbaum also played a role at Wikileaks.

The various connections tell us something regarding Assange's entourage. They do not, however, provide us with evidence that people within these various organizations were supportive of the Wikileaks project.

Recent Developments:
The Role of the Frontline Club

Over the last seven months,*the London based Frontline Club has served as de facto U.K "headquarters" for*Wikileaks. The Frontline Club is an initiative of Henry Vaughan Lockhart Smith, a former*British Grenadier Guards captain.*According to NATO, Vaughan Smith became an "independant*video*journalist [...] who always hated war, but remained [...] soldier-friendly". (Across the Wire,*New media: Weapons of mass communication, NATO Review, February 2008)*

Upon his release*from bail, Julian Assange was provided refuge at Vaughan Smith's Ellingham Manor*in Norfolk.

The Frontline Club is an establishment media outfit. Vaughan Smith writes for the NATO Review. (See NATO Web TV Channel and NATO Nations: Accurate, Reliable and Convenient). His relationship to NATO goes back to 1998 when he worked as a video journalist in Kosovo.*In 2010, he was "embedded with a platoon from the British Grenadier Guards" during Operation Moshtarak in Afghanistan's Helmand Province. (PBS NewsHour, February 19, 2010). According to the New York Times, The Frontline Club*"has received financing for its events from the Open Society Institute".*(In London, a Haven and a Forum for War Reporters - New York Times, 28 August 2006)

Concluding Remarks:
The Cyber Warfare Narrative
Wikileaks is now being used by the authorities, particularly in the US, to promote the cyber warfare narrative, which could dramatically change the Internet and suppress the freedom of expression Wikileaks claims to defend.
Peter Kornbluh, analyst at The National Security Archive, argues that "there's going to be a lot of screaming about Wikileaks and the new federal law to penalize, sanction, and put the boot down on organizations like Wikileaks, so that their reactions*can be deemed illegal."

Ultimately, Wikileaks could spark off, intentionally or not, entirely new rules and regulations.

This article was wirtten by Julie Lévesque is a journalist at Global Research, Centre for Research on Globalization*(CRG).
*
Julie Lévesque is a frequent contributor to Global Research. *Global Research Articles by Julie Lévesque

LINK - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/message/50246

More of the jig saw puzzle.....pieces for you to put into place.

Peace of Mind
4th January 2011, 20:17
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TheJPboU4c

hmm...

Peace

loveandgratitude
4th January 2011, 23:36
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange praising war criminal Netanyahu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijVIc3NYLfs&feature=related

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th." -- George W. Bush at the U.N, November 10, 2001.

"I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."-- Julian Assange, Trojan whore, quoted in the Belfast Telegraph, July 30, 2010.

loveandgratitude
4th January 2011, 23:53
WikiLeaks is ZioPoison!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYIC2BMhE5A&feature=related

Wikileaks is Zionist Disinformation.
WAKE UP

New Dawn
5th January 2011, 00:32
Actually, it bothers me too. I don't want to be adversarial, but here's my own personal stance. (And yes - this might warrant an interesting thread of its own.) :)

I don't want the forum to degenerate into a free-expression-fest swamped by people who can't write English very well justifying their lack of ability to write by saying that anything goes and that any request to spellcheck, format correctly or write full sentences is somehow 'censorship'.

I very much value the English language (any language!) as an artform.

Some members are dyslexic (and also highly intelligent, sensitive and perceptive) and they will always have my full support.

Some are non-English speakers who spend a LONG time working hard to express themselves clearly in a language that's not theirs. I really admire those people. Some of them work hard to construct messages in English that are better crafted than those from people who have English as their first language and have been writing and speaking it for 40 years.

Others don't seem to care. There's a difference.

:focus:

Lukily 4 u guyz, Im well good at Inglish......innit....

Hehe Sorry, but things are too tense right now in some of these threads. Please lets all lighten up; we are all on the same side here, are we not?!

Now, on topic, I think Julian is a hero, at the moment at least, so watch this space!

Have a good night all - after a long day in Ableton (music sequencer) I'm going to bed!!

StephenW11UK
5th January 2011, 01:45
Thank you, loveand gratitude, I didn't feel I got much more than the speaker's opinion about things, though. I don't mean by that that some of his assertions may not in time be proved to be accurate. This short interview with John Pilger gives us a different understanding of the value of the Wikileaks disclosures and, most importantly, gives all those people who have never as yet come across this kind of information an insight into the crooked workings of their governments.

witchy1
5th January 2011, 05:47
Waiting, Waiting, Waiting, Waiting, Waiting------------- Where is the UFO disclosure information Julian????????

Gone001
6th January 2011, 05:25
Lukily 4 u guyz, Im well good at Inglish......innit....

Hehe Sorry, but things are too tense right now in some of these threads. Please lets all lighten up; we are all on the same side here, are we not?!

Now, on topic, I think Julian is a hero, at the moment at least, so watch this space!

Have a good night all - after a long day in Ableton (music sequencer) I'm going to bed!!


That comment was stemming from a disagreement that flared up before the Charles int was even released; the whole thing was cleared up and the thread has been back on topic for some time now. Thanks for the concern regardless. :)

Gone001
10th February 2011, 12:16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9VT4wTYccA

60 minute interview

Midnight Rambler
10th February 2011, 12:31
Pawn. I'm trying to embed here, bare with me.

GRR:( I will make link here. (http://nos.nl/l/tcm:5-897540/)

some parts are in Dutch, but the interview is English.

He does not seem to be a very nice guy and is motivated by fear?

Donna O
11th February 2011, 13:37
This picture speaks volumes to me, as much as I want to think he is truly on the side of the people.......gotta make u think

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ScreenHunter_02-Dec.-09-09.27.gif

also another interesting video linked here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoZei4Bz7CQ

gypsieme
15th February 2011, 01:24
Whistle blowers are heroes! They should be protected and supported.

jjl
15th February 2011, 01:28
all i want to know is; Where is the promised ufo stuff?

king anthony
15th February 2011, 01:34
Does it matter if WikiLeaks & Julian Assange are pawns or slaves to the ruling class1? Does it matter about the quality of what has or will be said1? Cannot others use what is has been presented against 'them', if intent was to be against others?

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

Gone001
15th February 2011, 11:45
all i want to know is; Where is the promised ufo stuff?

Hello jjl

He has stated in recent interviews that the info pertains more to UFO cults then actual UFO's and will be released soon. All is explained in this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU2UosZ9rCU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zU2UosZ9rCU

Here is the full interview:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyF5OC-Fdbg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyF5OC-Fdbg

Cheers,

Aldous

Gone001
15th February 2011, 11:50
Does it matter if WikiLeaks & Julian Assange are pawns or slaves to the ruling class1? Does it matter about the quality of what has or will be said1? Cannot others use what is has been presented against 'them', if intent was to be against others?

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

Of course it matters K.A! That's like asking if credibility matters lol :P .

Cheers,

Aldous

Tuza
15th February 2011, 11:57
Julian grew up with a mother who was very much into protesting against wrongs, but gave it up because she had a young Julian in the car when she was on one of her rebel activities and was accused by him for being a bad mother; so she gave that up to concentrate on her son.

Julian was hacking by the time he was a teenager. My honest opinion is he is a genius and he is trying to get the truth out the best way he knows how through his IT nouse.

The trouble he has been threatened, tptw are after him, if anything happens to him I will do everything in my power to point the bone.

Icecold
15th February 2011, 12:37
Julian grew up with a mother who was very much into protesting against wrongs, but gave it up because she had a young Julian in the car when she was on one of her rebel activities and was accused by him for being a bad mother; so she gave that up to concentrate on her son.

Julian was hacking by the time he was a teenager. My honest opinion is he is a genius and he is trying to get the truth out the best way he knows how through his IT nouse.

The trouble he has been threatened, tptw are after him, if anything happens to him I will do everything in my power to point the bone.

If you read his website...its linked somewhere...you'll see that he is very intellectually inclined and has a distinct social conscience.

I'm with you there Tuza. ;)

Tuza
15th February 2011, 12:40
Just going with my gut Ice, sometimes I get nothing on a person which is frustrating and other times even when the tide is going against someone I get very strong instincts. Just depends.

king anthony
15th February 2011, 12:46
Does it matter if WikiLeaks & Julian Assange are pawns or slaves to the ruling class1? Does it matter about the quality of what has or will be said1? Cannot others use what is has been presented against 'them', if intent was to be against others?

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

Of course it matters K.A! That's like asking if credibility matters lol :P .

Cheers,

Aldous

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

Gone001
15th February 2011, 13:05
Does it matter if WikiLeaks & Julian Assange are pawns or slaves to the ruling class1? Does it matter about the quality of what has or will be said1? Cannot others use what is has been presented against 'them', if intent was to be against others?

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

Of course it matters K.A! That's like asking if credibility matters lol :P .

Cheers,

Aldous

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

You just said that... One can look at the stars if he wants and miss everything else that's going on. It's important to try and understand the man's motives to know if the material is credible and gain a proper understanding of the intent/possible outcome. You can use that same 'look at the stars' attitude with everything if you want to but it may end up causing one to be un-prepared for whatever is in store and not gain a proper understanding of events.

Cheers,

Aldous

king anthony
15th February 2011, 13:19
Does it matter if WikiLeaks & Julian Assange are pawns or slaves to the ruling class1? Does it matter about the quality of what has or will be said1? Cannot others use what is has been presented against 'them', if intent was to be against others?

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

Of course it matters K.A! That's like asking if credibility matters lol :P .

Cheers,

Aldous

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

You just said that... One can look at the stars if he wants and miss everything else that's going on. It's important to try and understand the man's motives to know if the material is credible and gain a proper understanding of the intent/possible outcome. You can use that same 'look at the stars' attitude with everything if you want to but it may end up causing one to be un-prepared for whatever is in store and not gain a proper understanding of events.

Cheers,

Aldous

What does the standard you imposed do for the overall picture of this civilization?

Gone001
15th February 2011, 14:06
Does it matter if WikiLeaks & Julian Assange are pawns or slaves to the ruling class1? Does it matter about the quality of what has or will be said1? Cannot others use what is has been presented against 'them', if intent was to be against others?

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

Of course it matters K.A! That's like asking if credibility matters lol :P .

Cheers,

Aldous

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

You just said that... One can look at the stars if he wants and miss everything else that's going on. It's important to try and understand the man's motives to know if the material is credible and gain a proper understanding of the intent/possible outcome. You can use that same 'look at the stars' attitude with everything if you want to but it may end up causing one to be un-prepared for whatever is in store and not gain a proper understanding of events.

Cheers,

Aldous

What does the standard you imposed do for the overall picture of this civilization?

It's not a standard I imposed it's called common sense; I would say that would be good for civilization and something that is sorely needed! If you were in the Forrest being chased by a wolf would you stop and admire the tree's? As I said you can use that attitude of 'look at the stars' for anything (for nothing is known for certain until the outcome can be seen) but if you investigate, debate and deliberate (which is the point of this thread and many others on this forum) then you may just be one step ahead of the pack and avoid getting chased down in the woods.

I urge you to take a closer look at the Civilization we live in now which for the most part keep their heads firmly placed up there buttock. They spend they're time 'looking at the stars' (using your analogy) and miss everything that goes on. If you would like to continue living in that civilization be my guest I'll take my chances with the thoughtful, intelligent, well informed one that always questions keeping one step ahead of the pack. If you'd like to rebuttal this be my guest but you should try clarifying and explaining your views instead of just saying them :).

Cheers,

Aldous

king anthony
15th February 2011, 14:52
Does it matter if WikiLeaks & Julian Assange are pawns or slaves to the ruling class1? Does it matter about the quality of what has or will be said1? Cannot others use what is has been presented against 'them', if intent was to be against others?

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

Of course it matters K.A! That's like asking if credibility matters lol :P .

Cheers,

Aldous

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

You just said that... One can look at the stars if he wants and miss everything else that's going on. It's important to try and understand the man's motives to know if the material is credible and gain a proper understanding of the intent/possible outcome. You can use that same 'look at the stars' attitude with everything if you want to but it may end up causing one to be un-prepared for whatever is in store and not gain a proper understanding of events.

Cheers,

Aldous

What does the standard you imposed do for the overall picture of this civilization?

It's not a standard I imposed it's called common sense; I would say that would be good for civilization and something that is sorely needed! If you were in the Forrest being chased by a wolf would you stop and admire the tree's? As I said you can use that attitude of 'look at the stars' (which seems more like laziness to me) for anything (for nothing is known for certain until the outcome can be seen) but if you investigate, debate and deliberate (which is the point of this thread and many others on this forum) then you may just be one step ahead of the pack and avoid getting chased down in the woods.

I urge you to take a closer look at the Civilization we live in now which for the most part keep their heads firmly placed up there buttock. They spend they're time 'looking at the stars' (using your analogy) and miss everything that goes on. If you would like to continue living in that civilization be my guest I'll take my chances with the thoughtful, intelligent, well informed one that always questions keeping one step ahead of the pack. If you'd like to rebuttal this be my guest but you should try (at the very least) coming up with something new or actually explaining yourself instead of using vague, repetitive, hard to understand statements like you've done thus far otherwise for my part, end of conversation :).

Cheers,

Aldous

Was my point about looking at the stars or not looking at the hand or moon? If you find my statements 'vague, repetitive and hard to understand', then how is it you reply to my statements? Sorry I have upset you, this was not my objective.

Gone001
15th February 2011, 15:01
Does it matter if WikiLeaks & Julian Assange are pawns or slaves to the ruling class1? Does it matter about the quality of what has or will be said1? Cannot others use what is has been presented against 'them', if intent was to be against others?

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

Of course it matters K.A! That's like asking if credibility matters lol :P .

Cheers,

Aldous

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

You just said that... One can look at the stars if he wants and miss everything else that's going on. It's important to try and understand the man's motives to know if the material is credible and gain a proper understanding of the intent/possible outcome. You can use that same 'look at the stars' attitude with everything if you want to but it may end up causing one to be un-prepared for whatever is in store and not gain a proper understanding of events.

Cheers,

Aldous

What does the standard you imposed do for the overall picture of this civilization?

It's not a standard I imposed it's called common sense; I would say that would be good for civilization and something that is sorely needed! If you were in the Forrest being chased by a wolf would you stop and admire the tree's? As I said you can use that attitude of 'look at the stars' (which seems more like laziness to me) for anything (for nothing is known for certain until the outcome can be seen) but if you investigate, debate and deliberate (which is the point of this thread and many others on this forum) then you may just be one step ahead of the pack and avoid getting chased down in the woods.

I urge you to take a closer look at the Civilization we live in now which for the most part keep their heads firmly placed up there buttock. They spend they're time 'looking at the stars' (using your analogy) and miss everything that goes on. If you would like to continue living in that civilization be my guest I'll take my chances with the thoughtful, intelligent, well informed one that always questions keeping one step ahead of the pack. If you'd like to rebuttal this be my guest but you should try (at the very least) coming up with something new or actually explaining yourself instead of using vague, repetitive, hard to understand statements like you've done thus far otherwise for my part, end of conversation :).

Cheers,

Aldous

Was my point about looking at the stars or not looking at the hand or moon? If you find my statements 'vague, repetitive and hard to understand', then how is it you reply to my statements? Sorry I have upset you, this was not my objective.

Not looking at the 'hand'/'moon' would be the same thing.. your still turning a blind eye are you not? If I've misunderstood your meaning then please feel free to clarify. I reply in hopes of giving you something to think about, that's all; that's what we do for each other here.

Cheers,

Aldous

king anthony
15th February 2011, 15:13
Does it matter if WikiLeaks & Julian Assange are pawns or slaves to the ruling class1? Does it matter about the quality of what has or will be said1? Cannot others use what is has been presented against 'them', if intent was to be against others?

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

Of course it matters K.A! That's like asking if credibility matters lol :P .

Cheers,

Aldous

'One can look at the hand pointing to the moon, or one can look at the moon, or one can look at the stars'.

You just said that... One can look at the stars if he wants and miss everything else that's going on. It's important to try and understand the man's motives to know if the material is credible and gain a proper understanding of the intent/possible outcome. You can use that same 'look at the stars' attitude with everything if you want to but it may end up causing one to be un-prepared for whatever is in store and not gain a proper understanding of events.

Cheers,

Aldous

What does the standard you imposed do for the overall picture of this civilization?

It's not a standard I imposed it's called common sense; I would say that would be good for civilization and something that is sorely needed! If you were in the Forrest being chased by a wolf would you stop and admire the tree's? As I said you can use that attitude of 'look at the stars' (which seems more like laziness to me) for anything (for nothing is known for certain until the outcome can be seen) but if you investigate, debate and deliberate (which is the point of this thread and many others on this forum) then you may just be one step ahead of the pack and avoid getting chased down in the woods.

I urge you to take a closer look at the Civilization we live in now which for the most part keep their heads firmly placed up there buttock. They spend they're time 'looking at the stars' (using your analogy) and miss everything that goes on. If you would like to continue living in that civilization be my guest I'll take my chances with the thoughtful, intelligent, well informed one that always questions keeping one step ahead of the pack. If you'd like to rebuttal this be my guest but you should try (at the very least) coming up with something new or actually explaining yourself instead of using vague, repetitive, hard to understand statements like you've done thus far otherwise for my part, end of conversation :).

Cheers,

Aldous

Was my point about looking at the stars or not looking at the hand or moon? If you find my statements 'vague, repetitive and hard to understand', then how is it you reply to my statements? Sorry I have upset you, this was not my objective.

Not looking at the 'hand'/'moon' would be the same thing.. your still turning a blind eye are you not? If I've misunderstood your meaning then please feel free to clarify. I reply in hopes of giving you something to think about, that's all; that's what we do for each other here.

Cheers,

Aldous

I have sent you a PM :)

Gone001
15th February 2011, 15:31
and I have replied :)

General Urko
15th February 2011, 15:34
Hero or pawn,good question. Please forgive me for not citing where exactly I heard this, I'm currently very busy and can't acess my archival material. The servers that wikileaks uses are basically leased,borrowed or owned by the gentleman who operates "Pirate Bay". This gentleman I believe also was the president of Swedish Telecom. I Understand that this paticular gentleman is linked positivley to Boormans secret (or not so secret) Nazi network. At best, this means that a Nazi faction gets first look at various government plans and secrets. Since they control the servers,perhaps there is active disinformation or censorship in the wikileaks info.You can be sure that any info released by wikileaks is either not important to the Nazi faction or is being released to further some sort of agenda.


Now for my personal opinion. He is not a hero or pawn. He is just another willing tool of the PTB.

Zook
15th February 2011, 15:44
Hero or pawn,good question. Please forgive me for not citing where exactly I heard this, I'm currently very busy and can't acess my archival material. The servers that wikileaks uses are basically leased,borrowed or owned by the gentleman who operates "Pirate Bay". This gentleman I believe also was the president of Swedish Telecom. I Understand that this paticular gentleman is linked positivley to Boormans secret (or not so secret) Nazi network. At best, this means that a Nazi faction gets first look at various government plans and secrets. Since they control the servers,perhaps there is active disinformation or censorship in the wikileaks info.You can be sure that any info released by wikileaks is either not important to the Nazi faction or is being released to further some sort of agenda.
Now for my personal opinion. He is not a hero or pawn. He is just another willing tool of the PTB.

Bravo!!! Nice piece of investigative work, General!

And you can take it to the Rothschild bank that the Nazi network is financed by ... the Rothschild bank.

:smow::typing:

king anthony
15th February 2011, 15:51
and I have replied :)

I believe we made positive progress, thank you for the PMs.

king anthony
15th February 2011, 16:33
The photo would not load here, sorry.

http://www.mediafire.com/?5mada2sbmykm6j8


For those who do not know of these videos:


Julian Assange Vs. Alastair Mullis -Free Speech Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGshmyKhcX4


Face to Face -Julian Assange -04-11-2010 Wikileaks(part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UeJy001sweM&feature=more_related


Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVGqE726OAo


Julian Assange of WikiLeaks - Oslo Freedom Forum 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDvfQ5gZ-Jw


Slain photographer's brother denounces 'criminal' US military

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jgqRzwh-fI


With the above said, I am not advocating or supporting WikiLeaks or Julian Assange or the the material above; I am simply sharing information, for what it's worth.

Gone001
26th February 2011, 09:41
Assange to be extradited, may get appeal:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMtE6CPED2I&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMtE6CPED2I&feature=player_embedded

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange WILL be extradited to Sweden to face sex attack allegations, judge rules

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:23 AM on 25th February 2011

* Comments (276)
* Videos
* Add to My Stories

Order: Julian Assange will be extradited to Sweden, a judge ordered

The founder of whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, will be extradited to Sweden to answer sex attack allegations, a judge has ruled.

The 39-year-old Australian is accused of sexually assaulting one woman and raping another during a week-long visit to Stockholm in August.

He denies any wrongdoing and has sought to fight the case on the grounds that if he is sent to Sweden, he could ultimately be sent to the U.S. where he claims he could face the death penalty for leaking diplomatic secrets.

However, the judge at Belmarsh Magistrates Court in London said he would have to answer the allegations in Sweden.

Announcing his decision, District Judge Howard Riddle said extraditing Assange to Sweden would not breach his human rights.

He also disagreed with defence lawyers' claims that what Assange is accused of doing would not actually amount to rape in this country.

And he dismissed the argument that the whistleblower would not receive a fair trial, despite a certain amount of negative publicity surrounding the case.

This publicity includes allegedly damaging comments said to have been made by the Swedish prime minister about Assange.

Judge Riddle said: 'The defence refer to the alleged denigration of the defendant by the Swedish prime minister.

'For this reason and other reasons it is said Mr Assange will not receive a fair trial.

'I don't accept this was the purpose of the comment or the effect.'

Assange will appeal against the ruling at the High Court, his barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC told the court in legal argument.

One woman claims that she consented to sex only with a condom, but that Assange intentionally broke it and continued to have sex with her.

The second alleges he had unwanted, unprotected sex with her while she slept. Both acts would run foul of Sweden’s strict consent laws if proven.

Speaking outside court afterwards, Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, said the judge's decision came as no surprise.
Activists: Assange gets support from campaigners outside the court

Activists: Assange gets support from campaigners outside the court

'This was, I think, reasonably to be expected,' he said. 'It reaffirms the concerns that we had about the form of tick-box justice that is the European Arrest Warrant...

'What the judge has done is confirm that system is just that.'

But he did not blame Judge Riddle, suggesting instead that he was 'hamstrung'.
WHAT NOW FOR ASSANGE?

Lawyers for Julian Assange will now lodge an appeal within seven days of today's hearing,

The appeal will be heard before judges at the High Court and if unsuccessful Assange could be extradited within 10 days to Sweden.

In Sweden, Assange would face questions from police and if he is charged or not, could theoretically face extradition proceeding to the U.S. where he could be questioned over the leaking of diplomatic cables.

The ultimate sanction for the transmission of classified military secrets in the U.S. is execution.

He said: 'We're pretty sure the secrecy and the way (the case) has been conducted so far have registered with this judge.'

But Assange and his legal team remain confident that the matter will be resolved in Britain, he added, saying they are hopeful there will be an appeal.

He went on: 'We have to remember that at this point Julian remains uncharged.'

Assange has had to shell out a huge sum to defend himself so far, with the cost of translating material alone amounting to more than £30,000, his lawyer said.

'That's a cost the prosecution should be bearing,' he added. 'The prosecution should be translating everything into a language he understands.'

Any appeal against the extradition ruling must be lodged in the next seven days.

Assange was later given bail on the same conditions as before.

At today's hearing, Lady Caroline Evans and Professor Patricia David told the court they were prepared to stand £20,000 surety for him.

Others who have offered financial guarantees against him skipping bail include Frontline Club founder Vaughan Smith at whose country house he has been staying.

After the hearing, Assange hit out at the extradition process.

He said: 'The magistrate here today felt that he was constrained, that he was unable to consider anything that was not on those two pages.

'His finding was he did not need to look off the face of the warrant.

'We need a system in Europe where the justice system of our 26 countries can be scrutinised by any one country.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360211/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-extradited-Sweden-face-rape-sex-attack-allegations.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Zook
26th February 2011, 12:18
Good Morning Good Avalon!!!

Opinions are worth something if they can be backed with critical thinking. Then there are the patterns to be studied that assist the facts. And then there are the facts. Julian Assange, Wikileaks, Anonymous, Openleaks ... are psychological operations not because of my simple assertion to that effect, but because they can be traced back to the establishment intelligence agencies using critical analysis, the study of patterns, and the observable facts. In spite of this, we have people holding on to the functionally zero probability that Assange is a hero, i.e. a genuine rebel with cause.

The pattern of 1984 hasn't dissuaded our eternal optimists from confusing the real Assange with the real enemy of the establishment.
E.g. Assange <-> Goldstein; Wikileaks <-> The Brotherhood; 2010 <-> 1984 ... and this pattern goes even further back ... Goldstein <->Trotsky; The Brotherhood <-> Bolsheviks; 1984 <-> 1917.

The fact of multiplicity in Assange's Rothschild affinities (Soros, Mark Stephens, The Economist, Waddesdon Manor, exculpation of Rothschild virtual estate Israel, etc.); the fact of his remark of 9/11/2001 being a false conspiracy; the fact of rape accuser's Anna Ardin Mossad/CIA connections (e.g. a honey trap where both the honey and the sweet tooth have close CIA/Mossad connections); the fact that virtually all of Wikileaks releases are in alignment with the NWO agenda to destabilize the Middle East (e.g. to create chaos in advance of order as revealed by Lindsey Williams in recent Alex Jones interview); etc.

Finally, the lack of critical thinking in the analysis of the supporters of Assange, itself, amplifies the propaganda, and largely because those who haven't done the critical research and/or thinking ... are less inclined to argue and more inclined to post anything and everything that confirms their conclusions.

But here's an URL that educes the essence of Wikileaks and Assange:
http://drgoldstein.blogspot.com/2010/12/endgame-for-mossadleaks-er-um-wikileaks.html

To wit, when one's argument lacks evidentiary facts, lacks discussion of evident patterns, and there is no evidence of a rigored connecting of the dots - as is the case with the supporting argument for Assange ... then one is perhaps better advised to spend their energies elsewhere. Propaganda only works if people are willing to accommodate it. Humble opinions all around.

:smow::typing:

chelmostef
26th February 2011, 18:52
Watch from 12.47 in reagards to wiki. This is showing Wiki leaks to be a target that TPTwere are trying to take down...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hPvRjpRjLg&feature=player_embedded

Zook
26th February 2011, 19:49
Watch from 12.47 in reagards to wiki. This is showing Wiki leaks to be a target that TPTwere are trying to take down...
[...]


With all due respect, chelmostef, please posit an argument in defense of Wikileaks if you believe one exists. Merely making assertions with nary facts or critical judgment ... is the kind of stuff that makes FOX-news and the such, highly popular with the demographic that watches that fluff. Those human units had stopped critical thought at the front door a long time ago and have bunkered down to drink the koolaid in jumbo cups with little or no diluting ice.

FTR, the above video contains nothing wrt to the legitimacy of Wikileaks. It's not even original conjecture. Salon is MSM. Greenwald is an MSM minion. Wikileaks is MSM. "Anonymous" is alphabet agency confabulation. The band of brothers, HBGary, that the banks have apparently hired to allegedly defend against Wikileaks, is a sockpuppet corporate security firm. Booz Allen <---- consulting firm comprised mostly of former spooks.

It's a circular setup, folks.


:smow::typing:

ps: A veritable Punch and Judy show for those susceptible to propaganda. Check from 21:00 to the end. HBGary is implicated in creating virtual personas to spread disinfo??? For crying out trucking deep purple falls! This Greenwald mock-human is apparently making light of Cass Sunstein's antiConstitutional antiAmerican actions (while playing Obama's ventriloquist).

ps2: The Mastards control all sides of the injury ... Wikileaks; the Wikileaks defenders; and the false flag smear campaign against Wikileaks.

ps3: To his credit, Max Keiser lets the mock-human ramble on with his own figurative hanging rope without getting rope fibres on himself.

ps4: Cognitive infiltration = propaganda = ideological subversion (Yuri Begmenov).