Wikileaks-two words; 'Highly Suspicious'. Just the media hype alone is enough to raise eyebrows and yes I agree that it will be a wonderful excuse for them to help shut down the real alternative news. Problem, reaction, solution again.
I concur! _________________ "The likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him[her] wrong."
- - Harry Segall
"The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." Lenin 1917
Wiki-Leaks and plausible lies - Where have all the critical thinkers gone?
by Joe Quinn, Signs of the Times, 2 December 2010
While the revelations in the Wiki-leaks documents about the true nature of the US government and its imperial attitude towards other nations are welcome, I find myself in the strange position of having to agree with Hillary Clinton, David Cameron et al that the leaks won't affect anyone's relations with anyone.
Our leaders are an inherently hypocritical bunch and over the past 10 years, even the most uninformed have come to understand that our leaders have a definite tendency to say one thing and do another. Who doubts that such hardened politicians fully understand that lying to each other is par for the course in the sordid game of modern global governance? As such, why should the public be overly surprised to see confirmation of this in the Wiki-leaks documents? Entertained and even intrigued, but surprised?
I am not saying that there is no value in certain aspects of the documents themselves to the extent that they provide a chance to disseminate government corruption and mendacity to a wide audience, but titillating details such as Gadaffi's buxom 'nurse' is nothing new and, much more importantly, such details are by no means the main focus of the documents themselves.
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran...
The Wiki-leaks documents need to be considered in a broader context. By all means, alternative news sites should continue to expose American, British and any another government inequity that the documents reveal. But where is the criticism of the rest of the documents that confirm the standard Israeli/American narrative - that Iran poses 'an existentialist threat' to Israel and to 'moderate' Arab states?
Does anyone care that these documents clearly support US and Israeli war-mongering? Does anyone else find that to be astonishing? Where is the critical thought?
The problem is that, when the dust has settled (as it soon will) over all-too-familiar US government attempts to spy on UN officials and the pusillanimity of the British government assuring the Americans that their Iraq invasion inquiry would have a pro-US bias, we will be left with some core details which, far from being refuted or covered up, are being accepted as fact. Details such as:
Iran is the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East. This is a blatant lie as every alternative, anti-war analyst who has studied the facts has declared vociferously for years now. And suddenly, with a widely publicized leak, the mainstream media wants to try and shove it down our throats again? Because it is a "leak" and Assange is being "hunted down" like Osama bin Under-the-bed? What kind of truth has ever gotten this kind of press in all the years since the Fascist take-over by the unelected G.W. Bush?
Iran received missile technology from North Korea that may enable it to attack Europe in a few years. That's pure propaganda, and every one of you alt news analysts and commentators know that. Iran is making its own missiles and, in any case, Iran is entitled to defend itself. You've all been saying that for years, based on hard data and researched facts. All of a sudden, a leak appears and the mainstream media wants to convince us otherwise? And you compare it to Watergate? Did you read Fletcher Prouty's expose on Watergate, how many of the documents were created and planted to be leaked because they served the agenda of the PTB?
Middle Eastern leaders want the US and Israel to attack Iran. How can this not been seen as further US and Israeli propaganda? And what Middle Eastern country in its right mind would want that considering that the entire area will be unfit for human habitation for years afterward?
Tehran used Red Cross ambulances to smuggle arms to Hizb'allah during its war against Israel in 2006 . Even if true, Iran is entitled to help the Lebanese defend themselves against Israeli aggression just like UK helped the U.S. attack Iraq and Afghanistan. Haven't all of you people been saying this for years now?
Iran harbors 'al Qaeda'. Why would this be seen as anything other than more of the tired old US 'al-qaeda' imaginings designed to scare the masses, at home and abroad?
Iran could produce an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015. And Saddam could 'hit the UK in 45 minutes', remember?
Pakistan continues to support the 'Mumbai terror attack group'. Why no details of David Headley, the CIA agent who planned the Mumbai attacks and who, according to the CIA, 'went rogue'? Again, yeah, right!
And let's not forget previous Wiki-leaks 'dumps' of data, which included nuggets of US and Israeli government nonsense like Iraq really did have WMDs! And there you were thinking that the WMD business was a total lie! Well, guess again, thanks to some of the Wiki-leaks documents, we now know that the US was totally justified in invading Iraq and killing 1.5 million innocent civilians. And if that isn't enough for ya, then just remember...9/11! Bin Laden (who is alive and well according to previous Wiki-leaks documents) killed about 3,000 Americans that day, which leaves the US and Iraq just about even (500 Iraqi lives being equal to one American life). And don't go spouting any spurious conspiracy theories, because Mr Assange is annoyed that such 'false conspiracies" [like 9/11] distract so many people (like you).
As Phyillis Bennis wrote recently on the Huffington Post:
"If you watched only Fox News or some of the outraged-but-gleeful mainstream pundits, you would believe that the documents prove the dangers of Iran's nuclear program and world-wide support for a military attack on Iran. If you read only the Israeli press, you would think the documents provide irrefutable proof that "the entire world is panicked over the Iranian nuclear program."
Phyillis is correct, but here's the problem: a vast number of people do watch only Fox News or one of its affiliates, and what gets said in the Israeli press is very often received with a sympathetic ear across the US media.
So why is no one contesting these very dubious and much more serious claims? These are claims that could be used to justify an attack on Iran and the murder of millions of Iranian civilians?
Yes, the US government is full of two-faced creeps who spy on friend and foe alike, and if the Wiki-leaks documents help to imprint that on the global awareness, then so much the better. But what will it change in the long run? And more importantly, at what price will come the wholesale acceptance of these documents? If, by simply referring to the precise details and the dominant discourse of the documents, I conclude that some aspects serve the goals of peace and public truth but many others serve the goals of the war-mongers in Tel Aviv and Washington, does that mean I hate Whistle-blowers and want to protect the US government? This whole thing is like the well-known ploy of the psychopath to engage the sympathy of their victim by admitting to flaws and failings - even a few seemingly painful admissions - putting the target to sleep thinking they now have the whole confession, all the while they are being set up for a really big con.
Our world is run by people who lie for a living, so let's examine the situation microcosmically and then all you have to do is extract the principle and apply it on a larger scale.
"Our culture agrees on the signs of lying. Ask anyone how to tell if someone is lying and they will tell you that they can tell by "lack of eye contact, nervous shifting, or picking at one's clothes." Psychologist Anna Salter writes with dry humor: "This perception is so widespread I have had the fantasy that, immediately upon birth, nurses must take newborns and whisper in their ears, "Eye contact. It's a sign of truthfulness." [Anna C. Salter, Ph.D.]
The problem is, if there is a psychopath - or those with related characteropathies - who doesn't know how to keep good eye contact when lying, they haven't been born. Eye contact is "universally known" to be a sign of truth-telling. The problem is liars will fake anything that it is possible to fake, so in reality, eye contact is absolutely NOT a sign of truth telling.
Anna Salter writes:
The man in front of me is a Southern good-ole-boy, the kind of man I grew up with and like. If anything, I have a weakness for the kind of Southern male who can "Sam Ervin" you, the Southern lawyer who wears red suspenders in court along with twenty-five-year-old cowboy boots and who turns his accent up a notch when he sees the northern expert witness coming. A "northern city slicker" on the witness stand will elicit the same kind of focused interest that a deer will in hunting season. You can have some very long days in court with men who wear red suspenders and start by telling you how smart you are and how simple and dumb they are.
I survey the man in front of me. I am not in court; I am in prison, and he is not an attorney but a sex offender, and he has bright eyes along with that slow, sweet drawl. He is a big man, slightly balding, and he has - I have to admit there is such a thing - an innocent face. ...
My Southern good-ole-boy certainly knows eye contact is considered a sign of truthfulness. He describes his manner in getting away with close to 100 rapes of adults and children. He tells me:
The manner that I use when I was trying to convince somebody - even though I knew I was lying - I'd look them in the eye, but I wouldn't stare at them. Staring makes people uncomfortable and that tends to turn them away, so I wouldn't stare at them. But look at them in a manner that, you know, "look at this innocent face. How can you believe that I would do something like that?" It helps if you have a good command of the vocabulary where you can explain yourself in a way that is easily understood. Dress nice. Use fluent hand gestures that are not attacking in any way.
It's a whole combination of things. It's not any one thing that you can do. It's a whole combination of things that your body gestures and things that say "Look, I'm telling you the truth, and I don't know what these people are trying to pull. I don't know what they're trying to prove, but I haven't done any of this. I don't know why they're doing this. You can check my records. I've got a good record. I've never been in any trouble like this. And I don't know what's going on. I'm confused."...
As if reading my thoughts, he breaks off: "You don't get this, Anna, do you?" he says. "You think that when I'm asked, "Did I do it? that's when I lie. But I've been lying every day for the last twenty-five years."
The practiced liar: a category of liar that even experts find it difficult to detect.
Problem is, even when dealing with people who are not practiced liars, such as college students who have volunteered for a research study of lying, most observers are not as good as they think in detecting deception. The research shows consistently that most people - even most professional groups such as police and psychologists - have no better than a chance ability to detect deception. Flipping a coin would serve as well.
"If you want to deny something, make sure you've got an element of truth in it. It sounds like it's true, and there are elements of it that are very true that can be checked out, and try to balance it so that it has more truth than lie, so that when it is checked out, even if the lie part does come out, there's more truth there than lie."
This man was good enough that once he got away with stomping out of court in a huff. He was accused by his sister of raping her and molesting her daughter on the same day. He played it as a preposterous charge. His sister, he told the court, had once accused his uncle of abuse. She was well known in the family for making up crazy charges like this. He said he wasn't going to put up with such nonsense and walked out. No one stopped him, and no one ever called him back. The charge just disappeared somehow. He now admits that both charges were true.
It is 'likeability' and charm that he wields as weapons.
The double life is a powerful tactic. There is the pattern of socially responsible behavior in public that causes people to drop their guard, and to turn a deaf ear to disclosures. The ability to charm, to be likable, to radiate sincerity and truthfulness, is crucial to the successful liar - and they practice assiduously.
"Niceness is a decision," writes Gavin De Becker in The Gift of Fear. It is a "strategy of social interaction; it is not a character trait."
Despite the decades of research that have demonstrated that people cannot reliably tell whose lying and who isn't, most people believe they can. There is something so fundamentally threatening about the notion that we cannot really know whether or not to trust someone that it is very difficult to get anyone - clinicians, citizens, even police - to take such results seriously.
Assange on Netanyahu
In a recent Time Magazine interview, Julian Assange stated that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "is not a naive man" but rather a "sophisticated politician". That's Assange's assessment of a man who is clearly a psychopath. In the same interview Assange said:
"We can see the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu coming out with a very interesting statement that leaders should speak in public like they do in private whenever they can. He believes that the result of this publication, which makes the sentiments of many privately held beliefs public, are promising a pretty good [indecipherable] will lead to some kind of increase in the peace process in the Middle East and particularly in relation to Iran."
Apart from the fact that he appears to be praising a pathological war criminal, Assange displays an amazing level of naivete. Netanyahu's comment about Middle Eastern leaders making their private opinions public was in reference to the leaked allegation that the Saudi, Jordanian and Emirati governments were privately in favor of "cutting the head of the Iranian snake", something that Netanyahu has been cheer-leading for several years. Despite this, Assange believes that this will lead to "some kind of increase in the peace process in relation to Iran".
Say what?!
But not everyone is fooled. On Wednesday, a senior Turkish official blamed Israel for the Wiki-leaks release. Addressing reporters, Huseyin Celik, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's AKP party, hinted that Israel engineered the leak of hundreds of thousands of United States diplomatic cables as a plot to pressure the Turkish government.
"One has to look at which countries are pleased with these," Celik was quoted as saying. "Israel is very pleased. Israel has been making statements for days, even before the release of these documents."
"Documents were released and they immediately said, 'Israel will not suffer from this.' How did they know that?" Celik asked.
He doesn't even realize that probably many of these documents were created FOR leaking! Again, the reader is referred to Fletcher Prouty's book The Secret Team.
Critical Vs 'Black and White' Thinking
The Wiki-leaks documents that provide evidence for what is already understood should be accepted, the documents that echo what we already know to be US and Israeli propaganda should be understood as just that - US and Israeli propaganda. Is that so hard?
Why are many alternative news writers who railed against similar lies and disinformation when it came from US and Israeli 'Intel reports' now accepting, or ignoring, the same propaganda simply because it comes via Wiki-leaks? Do the Wiki-leaks documents have to be all good or are all bad? Is such black and white thinking ever a good way to discern truth from lies in a world where almost everything has some element of spin? Are we so desperate for a truth-telling hero - like the practiced liar described by Anna Salter above - that we have lost our ability to critically think? What happened to our ability to understand and identify the nuances and subtitles of big government propaganda?
The broad view of Wiki-leaks and its documents, so far, paints a picture of a concerted effort to supplant the alternative, anti-war media with an illusion of truth. As the Western mainstream media continues to reach new heights of mendacity and obfuscation of the truth, an increasing number of ordinary people have been turning to alternative news sites for a more accurate perspective of what is happening on our planet. This has posed a clear threat to those whose positions of influence and power depend on a misinformed population.
The solution to this problem would be the appearance on the scene of an organization that goes one better than the anti-war, alternative media and produces 'smoking gun', officially documented evidence of government lies and deception. Such evidence would, after all, come from the horse's mouth, a veritable admission of guilt from the wrong-doers themselves rather than accusations from third-party alternative news web sites. Re-read Anna Salter's description of the pedophile she was interviewing above to get a real picture of the pathology at work here. The deception, of course, lies not in the release of official documents, but in the use of those documents, which in themselves do not constitute high crimes, as a cover to promote the same big government lies. I submit that, based on the clear evidence, Wiki-leaks is just such an organization and is designed to fulfill just such a role: the dissemination of Plausible Lies.
.
Last edited by cem on Sat Dec 11, 2010 3:06 pm; edited 3 times in total
Dec 7 (Reuters) - WikiLeaks said on Tuesday it will keep operating as normal after the arrest of its founder, Julian Assange, in Britain.
"WikiLeaks is operational. We are continuing on the same track as laid out before," said Kristinn Hrafnsson, spokesman for the group. "Any development with regards to Julian Assange will not change the plans we have with regards to the releases today and in the coming days."
One series of cables from Baghdad reports that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki replaced hundreds of his most experienced intelligence and security officials with under-qualified "political officers" in advance of the 2010 Iraq elections.
Another series from Beirut in 2008 shows Lebanese Defense Minister Elias al-Murr telling U.S. diplomats, in a message he implied they should pass on to Israeli officials, that the Lebanese military would not resist an Israeli invasion so long as the Israeli forces abided by certain conditions. Murr, apparently hoping that an Israeli invasion would destroy much of the Hezbollah insurgency and the communities in Lebanon's south that support it, promised an Israeli invasion would go unchallenged as long as it did not pass certain physical boundaries and did not bomb Christian communities. A U.S. embassy official wrote, "Murr is trying to ascertain how long an offensive would be required to clean out Hizballah in the Beka'a." Murr added that he had discussed the plan with then-Military Commandant Michel Sleiman, who has since become the President of Lebanon. The small but vibrant community of Middle East-based, English-language Arab bloggers have expressed outrage at Murr and Sleiman's apparent invitation, predicting it will bring political disaster and possibly worse.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:08 pm Post subject:
Sex accusers bragged about 'conquest'
The two Swedish women who have brought sex charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange boasted about their relationship with him days before going to cops.
Based on information available on various websites quoting police and court papers, here's an account of what happened. The story goes back to August this year, when Assange was in Stockholm to speak at the invitation of Sweden's Social Democratic Party.
The event organizer was 31-year-old Anna Ardin, who has been described as a feminist, leftist, social democrat and opponent of abortion. She has worked at the Uppsala University, handling equality issues for the students' union. On Twitter, she has been called a "CIA agent" for "framing" Assange. (The net is abuzz with conspiracy theories on how Assange was framed.)
When Assange arrived in Stockholm, Ardin invited him to stay at her flat while she visited her family for a few days out in the country. Ardin returned home on August 13; she and Assange had sex that night. Both have admitted a condom was used and it broke. On August 20, Ardin would go to police alleging that Assange deliberately broke the condom during sex.
Ardin's co-accuser, 26-year-old Sofia Wilen, an aspiring photographer, had sex with Assange on the evening of August 16 and again the following morning. The first time, a condom was used; the second time, there was no condom. On August 20, Wilen would go to police alleging that Assange had refused to wear a condom.
After both sexual encounters, neither woman seemed to harbour any resentment against Assange. One of Assange's lawyers has been quoted as saying: "The exact content of Wilen's mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Neither Wilen's nor Ardin's texts complain of rape."
On August 14, the day following the night of "crime", Assange delivered a 90-minute speech about how war's first casualty is truth. Ardin was in attendance (as was Wilen) but showed no signs of the previous night's "trauma". At 2 o'clock that night, while hosting a party in Assange's honour at her flat, Ardin tweeted: "Sitting outside; nearly freezing; with the world's coolest people; it's pretty amazing."
After going to police on August 20, she deleted these tweets. After sex with Assange on the morning of August 17, Wilen went out, and bought, then cooked breakfast – oatmeal and juice.
On August 18, Wilen called up Ardin and told her that she had unprotected sex with Assange. She said she was upset he didn't use a condom and was afraid she might have contracted an STD or become pregnant. Ardin said she too had had sex with Assange. On August 20, both women filed charges against him.
And an obscure Swedish law was invoked. It is sometimes called the "surprise sex" law. In essence, it holds that if a woman withdraws her consent at any point during intercourse, and the man continues, it becomes rape. This transition from consensual to non-consensual sex is what Assange is accused of. The penalty is reported to be a fine of $715. But he has been arrested and now denied bail.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:34 pm Post subject:
WikiLeaks 'struck a deal with Israel' over diplomatic cables leaks
by LikiWeaks - Tuesday Dec 7th, 2010 6:39 PM
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/07/18665978.php
We should obviously all support WikiLeaks and its founder and spokesperson, Julian Assange, who has just been arrested in Britain, in this dirty war by states around the globe against transparency and openness. But in the world of politics, sadly, things are never as innocent as they appear. According to new revelations, Assange had allegedly struck a deal with Israel before the recent 'cable gate', which may explain why the leaks “were good for Israel,” as the Israeli prime minister put it.
A number of commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia, have been wondering why the hundreds of thousands of American classified documents leaked by the website last month did not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government, like just about every other state referred to in the documents. The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between the WikiLeaks “heart and soul”, as Assange humbly described himself once [1], with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were 'removed' before the rest were made public.
According to an Arabic investigative journalism website [2], Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a “secret, video-recorded agreement,” not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.
The sources of the Al-Haqiqa report are said to be former WikiLeaks volunteers who have left the organisation in the last few months over Assange's “autocratic leadership” and “lack of transparency.”
In a recent interview with the German daily Die Tageszeitung, former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg said he and other WikiLeaks dissidents are planning to launch their own whistleblowers' platform to fulfil WikiLeaks's original aim of “limitless file sharing.” [3]
Mr Domscheit-Berg, who is about to publish a book about his days 'Inside WikiLeaks', accuses Assange of acting as a “king” against the will of others in the organisation by “making deals” with media organisations that are meant to create an explosive effect, which others in WikiLeaks either know little or nothing about. [4]
Furthermore, Assange's eagerness for headline-grabbing scoops meant that WikiLeaks had not been able to 'restructure' itself to cope with this surge of interest, insiders add. This has meant that smaller leaks, which might be of interest to people at a local level, are now being overlooked for the sake of big stories. [5]
According to the Al-Haqiqa sources, Assange met with Israeli officials in Geneva earlier this year and struck the secret deal. The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively. These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the Israeli embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, where removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added.
Indeed, the published documents seem to have a 'gap' stretching over the period of July - September 2006, during which the 33-day Lebanon war took place. Is it possible that US diplomats and officials did not have any comments or information to exchange about this crucial event but spent their time 'gossiping' about every other 'trivial' Middle-Eastern matter?
Following the leak (and even before), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference that Israel had “worked in advance” to limit any damage from leaks, adding that “no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks.” [6] In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! [7]
According to another report [8], a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper had met with Assange twice and tried to negotiate a deal with him, offering “a big amount of money”, in order to get hold of documents concerning the 2006 war, particularly the minutes of a meeting held at the American embassy in Beirut on 24th July 2006, which is widely considered as a 'war council' meeting between American, Israeli and Lebanese parties that played a role in the war again Hizbullah and its allies. The documents the Al-Akhbar editors received, however, all date to 2008 onwards and do not contain “anything of value,” the sources confirm. This only goes to support the Israel deal allegations.
Finally, it might be worth pointing out that Assange might have done what he is alleged to have done in order protect himself and ensure that the leaked documents are published so as to expose the American hypocrisy, which he is said to be obsessed with “at the expense of more fundamental aims.”
WikiLeaks 'struck a deal with Israel' over diplomatic cables leaks
Indy Bay
by LikiWeaks
Tuesday Dec 7th, 2010 6:39 PM
We should obviously all support WikiLeaks and its founder and spokesperson, Julian Assange, who has just been arrested in Britain, in this dirty war by states around the globe against transparency and openness. But in the world of politics, sadly, things are never as innocent as they appear. According to new revelations, Assange had allegedly struck a deal with Israel before the recent 'cable gate', which may explain why the leaks “were good for Israel,” as the Israeli prime minister put it.
A number of commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia, have been wondering why the hundreds of thousands of American classified documents leaked by the website last month did not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government, like just about every other state referred to in the documents. The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between the WikiLeaks “heart and soul”, as Assange humbly described himself once [1], with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were 'removed' before the rest were made public.
According to an Arabic investigative journalism website [2], Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a “secret, video-recorded agreement,” not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests.
The sources of the Al-Haqiqa report are said to be former WikiLeaks volunteers who have left the organisation in the last few months over Assange's “autocratic leadership” and “lack of transparency.”
In a recent interview with the German daily Die Tageszeitung, former WikiLeaks spokesperson Daniel Domscheit-Berg said he and other WikiLeaks dissidents are planning to launch their own whistleblowers' platform to fulfil WikiLeaks's original aim of “limitless file sharing.” [3]
Mr Domscheit-Berg, who is about to publish a book about his days 'Inside WikiLeaks', accuses Assange of acting as a “king” against the will of others in the organisation by “making deals” with media organisations that are meant to create an explosive effect, which others in WikiLeaks either know little or nothing about. [4]
Furthermore, Assange's eagerness for headline-grabbing scoops meant that WikiLeaks had not been able to 'restructure' itself to cope with this surge of interest, insiders add. This has meant that smaller leaks, which might be of interest to people at a local level, are now being overlooked for the sake of big stories. [5]
According to the Al-Haqiqa sources, Assange met with Israeli officials in Geneva earlier this year and struck the secret deal. The Israel government, it seems, had somehow found out or expected that the documents to be leaked contained a large number of documents about the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 and 2008-9 respectively. These documents, which are said to have originated mainly from the Israeli embassies in Tel Aviv and Beirut, where removed and possibly destroyed by Assange, who is the only person who knows the password that can open these documents, the sources added.
Indeed, the published documents seem to have a 'gap' stretching over the period of July - September 2006, during which the 33-day Lebanon war took place. Is it possible that US diplomats and officials did not have any comments or information to exchange about this crucial event but spent their time 'gossiping' about every other 'trivial' Middle-Eastern matter?
Following the leak (and even before), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference that Israel had “worked in advance” to limit any damage from leaks, adding that “no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks.” [6] In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! [7]
According to another report [8], a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper had met with Assange twice and tried to negotiate a deal with him, offering “a big amount of money”, in order to get hold of documents concerning the 2006 war, particularly the minutes of a meeting held at the American embassy in Beirut on 24th July 2006, which is widely considered as a 'war council' meeting between American, Israeli and Lebanese parties that played a role in the war again Hizbullah and its allies. The documents the Al-Akhbar editors received, however, all date to 2008 onwards and do not contain “anything of value,” the sources confirm. This only goes to support the Israel deal allegations.
Finally, it might be worth pointing out that Assange might have done what he is alleged to have done in order protect himself and ensure that the leaked documents are published so as to expose the American hypocrisy, which he is said to be obsessed with “at the expense of more fundamental aims.”
ASSANGE ACCUSED: “TOOK MONEY FROM ISRAEL”
By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor
Reports have come in today, tying Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, directly to Israeli intelligence and “Israel friendly” media outlets. We are told Assange, while at a Geneva meeting, agreed to allow Israel to select or censor all Wikileak output.
Despite the dramatic arrest of Julian Assange for rape, a story long hyped by the media, Assange “the martyr” now appears to be Assange “the Israeli spy.” Reports from inside Wikileaks differ greatly from the image presented by the press, an Assange tied to ultra-nationalist Israeli groups, an Assange with an extremist agenda, an Assange who sees himself as a geopolitical player, willing to censor, willing to fabricate and willing to betray... _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
PressTV - Israel appears only in 77 Wikileaks docs
edition.presstv.ir
While WikiLeaks has released thousands of documents Israel is mentioned on 77 times... _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 1:23 am Post subject: Julian Assange: Proven Zionist, Israeli, Mossad Agent? Prove
Julian Assange: Proven Zionist, Israeli, Mossad Agent? Prove It.
Until proof has been supplied that Julian Assange is a Zionist agent, the term alleged remains in order. Otherwise, we may as well start believing the Zionists that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program and will definitely do a first strike on Israel and without provocation. Let's be consistent in the level of evidence we expect before anyone destroys anyone else.
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:17 am Post subject: Re: Julian Assange: Proven Zionist, Israeli, Mossad Agent? P
James Madison wrote:
Julian Assange: Proven Zionist, Israeli, Mossad Agent? Prove It.
Until proof has been supplied that Julian Assange is a Zionist agent, the term alleged remains in order. Otherwise, we may as well start believing the Zionists that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program and will definitely do a first strike on Israel and without provocation. Let's be consistent in the level of evidence we expect before anyone destroys anyone else.
http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2010/12/09/julian-assange-pr oven-zionist-israeli-mossad-agent-prove-it.html
So what has been the State Department position vis-a-vis the Zionists? It has been to appear to the American public once in awhile as trying to take a principled stand but the actions of the State Department and the Obama administration and administrations before it have shown that caving in is the rule. George H. W. Bush tried not caving in and did so somewhat successfully once. He was a one-term President even though he was as deep into the deep government as any President has ever been. The Zionists made sure he wasn't re-elected. The Clintons were and are real Zionists, especially Hillary. Bill simply made the calculations for how to get into office. George H. W. Bush was never a Zionist. He was not a neocon. His team was not neocon. He lost the Christian-Zionists (there's really no such thing, as Christianity is anti-Zionist). His son, scooped up the Christian-Zionists and rode in on the votes of "conservative Evangelicals" and of course, election fraud and a colluding Supreme Court.
Low level gossip these cables, but politically damaging.
Lasange meeting with the Israelis in Geneva.
I'd like to have been a fly on the wall there!
Did this happen or not?
Lebanese journailsts have raised the possibility the Wikileaks cables are an embarassing, sophisticated Israeli intelligence Psyop, of the perception management variety.
Tricks and games for high stakes.
Why the MSM media frenzy (advertising) with Julian Assange and his Wikileaks. What are they hiding?
Low level gossip these cables, but politically damaging.
Lasange meeting with the Israelis in Geneva.
I'd like to have been a fly on the wall there!
Did this happen or not?
Lebanese journailsts have raised the possibility the Wikileaks cables are an embarassing, sophisticated Israeli intelligence Psyop, of the perception management variety.
Tricks and games for high stakes.
Who knows? Is it to distract from the US? All I suggested was changing the name I mean CIA, FBI etc. is thrown in everywhere too but where is the proof there? _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:11 am Post subject:
WikiLeaks insurance
Download Torrent
Is this stuff for real or is Lasange the pied piper?
A difficult man to ignore.
As one of the BBC question time guests said this week... Wikileaks should prompt the mainstream documetary makers to far more scrutiny of all governments.
Is this stuff for real or is Lasange the pied piper?
A difficult man to ignore.
As one of the BBC question time guests said this week... Wikileaks should prompt the mainstream documetary makers to far more scrutiny of all governments.
All its doing thus far is telling us that water is wet. We all know that governments are corrupt the world over. So those documentaries etc, etc, as does the BBC etc, leads us in circles (pied piper) of our own corrupt government. So They would hide that which could break their agenda. They, being those that truly pull the strings behind the scene.
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:39 pm Post subject: Webster Tarpley - is Julian Assange COINTELPRO?
Webster Tarpley's insightful and illuminating comments on Julian Assange and related characters and influences. Includes a very interesting section on Cass Sunstein.
Prosecutors may decide today on charges against WikiLeaks founder
* Nick Davies and Marie Louise Sjolie
* The Guardian, Tuesday 24 August 2010
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange attends a seminar in Stockholm earlier this month Photograph: Reuters
Swedish prosecutors say they hope to announce today whether they will pursue two cases of alleged sexual assault involving Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.
Prosecutors say they are considering a complaint of sexual molestation from one woman, Ms A, who has previously been an active supporter of Assange. They say they are also still considering whether any offence may have been committed against a woman known as Ms W, who met Assange at a seminar in Stockholm this month, and who originally alleged rape, a charge which was soon dropped. Assange has emphatically denied committing any offence against either woman.
In a case mired in conflicting claims, only a few essential events are clear:
• On Friday last week, Ms A and Ms W together approached police in Stockholm and reported that they had been sexually assaulted by Assange.
• Both women reported that they had been involved in consensual sexual relationships with Assange, but each reported a separate non-consensual incident of a similar character in which Assange allegedly had sex with them without using a condom.
• Both alleged incidents were very recent. The alleged molestation of Ms A was said to have occurred on the morning of Saturday 14 August. The alleged rape of Ms W was said to have occurred on the morning of Tuesday 17 August.
• The Swedish police passed a report to prosecutors, who issued a formal warrant for Assange's arrest on suspicion of rape. On the following day, the charge of rape was dropped and the warrant was rescinded.
It is understood that before going to the police, both women asked Assange to have a health check to reassure them, and that Assange declined to do so. Ms W is said to have visited a hospital on Thursday before going to the police.
One source who is closely involved said neither of them had originally wanted the case prosecuted; that Ms W had wanted to report the alleged rape to police without their pursuing it, and that Ms A had gone with her to give her moral support and then become embroiled with the police, who had insisted on passing a report to prosecutors. Neither the police nor the prosecutor has spoken to Assange to record his version of events. The fact that a warrant had been issued for his arrest was rapidly leaked to a Swedish newspaper.
It remains unclear why the prosecutor first issued and then withdrew the arrest warrant. The prosecutor's office has said that the original issuing of the warrant was not a mistake, and that it was cancelled when it received new information.
The chief prosecutor, Eva Finne, yesterday told the Guardian: "I will analyse this matter thoroughly and make all necessary legal judgements, to be able to decide on the progress of the investigation. My estimation is that I can give information later this week, probably tomorrow." Ms A spoke at the weekend to the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet and said she was not frightened of Assange and that he was not violent. She said she had only ever alleged sexual molestation, not rape, and added: "In both cases, what started out as voluntary sex subsequently developed into an assault. The other woman wanted to report rape. I gave my story as testimony to her story and to support her. We stand by the information."
In a weekend interview with the same paper, for which he is due to become a regular columnist, Assange said: "I never, neither in Sweden nor in any other country, had sex with someone in a way that is not built on total consent from both sides." He said nobody had asked him for his side of the story but that he needed to know more about the accusations before he could discuss them in any detail.
In subsequent tweets and interviews, Assange suggested that the timing of the allegations against him was "deeply disturbing". He told al-Jazeera on Sunday: "It is clearly a smear campaign … The only question is who was involved. We can have some suspicions about who would benefit, but without direct evidence, I would not be willing to make a direct allegation." He said he had been warned that the US Pentagon was planning to use dirty tricks to spoil things for WikiLeaks.
In her interview with Aftonbladet, Ms A said: "The charges against Assange are, of course, not orchestrated by the Pentagon. The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man who has a twisted attitude to women and a problem with taking 'no' for an answer."
Assange attracted global attention last month when he posted a database of US military records from Afghanistan on the WikiLeaks website. The Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel published stories which were based on the records. US military authorities were highly critical of Assange's actions.
Ends:
More on the case, here from Newsweek, featuring Claes Borgström, the lawyer representing the two women who said they had sexual relationships with Assange and who also happens to be the Swedish Social Democratic Party's spokesperson on gender equality issues.
Speaking after inhaling a heavy dose of Swedish intellectual progressive nonsense, Mr Borgström, once claimed:
Quote:
... all men carry a collective guilt for violence against women.
Good luck, Mr Assange, if only you had worn a condom, or just said "no" you could have actually saved the world from tyranny.
Ho hum. _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
The Associated Press
Tuesday, December 14, 2010; 8:21 PM
WASHINGTON -- The Air Force is blocking computer access to The New York Times and other media sites that published sensitive diplomatic documents released by the Internet site WikiLeaks, a spokeswoman said Tuesday.
Air Force Maj. Toni Tones said more than 25 websites have been blocked and cannot be viewed by any Air Force computer. The ban - aimed at preventing the viewing of classified information - does not apply to personal computers.
The United States of America - the fulcrum of evil.
Spreading democracy throughout the world.... _________________ The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2010 7:17 pm Post subject:
Here I am on Russia Today this afternoon talking about the New York Times Story that the US military are blocking their staff from accessing Wikileaks and associated newspaper's web pages
http://rt.com/news/air-force-wikileaks-material/
US Air Force blocks news sites posting WikiLeaks
(AFP) – 1 hour ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gBgwIs4P51eTNJipp93 998z3LxFA
WASHINGTON — The US Air Force has blocked its workforce from visiting 25 media websites that published secret diplomatic documents released by WikiLeaks, a spokesman said Wednesday.
The move meant computers used by Air Force employees could not access newsites, including the New York Times, The Guardian and Der Speigel, that have posted the cables online, Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan told AFP.
The Air Force took the action because classified information was posted on those websites, he said.
The decision was taken by the 24th Air Force, which is responsible for cyber warfare and security.
No other branch of the military had taken a similar action, and Lapan said the measure was "neither DoD-directed nor DoD-wide," referring to the Department of Defense.
Some cyber analysts called it a clumsy overreaction and the New York Times said "it is unfortunate that the US Air Force has chosen not to allow its personnel access to information that virtually everyone else in the world can access."
Since WikiLeaks began releasing a stream of classified military and diplomatic files, the Pentagon has announced measures to try to prevent more massive leaks and to better regulate how secret documents are handled.
President Barack Obama's administration has already advised federal employees not to read the secret documents published by WikiLeaks unless they have the necessary security clearance.
WikiLeaks has yet to reveal how it obtained hundreds of thousands of secret US diplomatic cables as well as military intelligence documents, but suspicion has centered on Bradley Manning, a low-ranking soldier in Army intelligence, who has been detained since May.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gBgwIs4P51eTNJipp93 998z3LxFA _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2010 9:01 pm Post subject:
Doesn't this say so much about the way judges and lawyers are being very sucessful in destroying fundamental rights of the press?
Have these judges lawyers never heard of The European Convention of Human Rights?? Seems they just cherry pick from the ECHR when it suits them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_10_of_the_European_Convention_on_ Human_Rights
TonyGosling wrote:
The loopy lawyers at the Guardian won't print these fantasists' names
Accused are: Anna Ardin (tour organiser) & Sofia Wilen
a possible snippet about Israel:
http://grand-chessboard.com/blog/2010/12/20/israel-palestinians-worked -against-hamas-u-s-news-wikileaks-in-security-msnbc-com/ Israel, Palestinians worked against Hamas - U.S. news - WikiLeaks in Security - msnbc.com
JERUSALEM — A U.S. cable leaked on Monday said Israel and President Mahmoud Abbas’s forces worked closely together against Hamas as it took over Gaza in 2007, a potentially embarrassing revelation for the Palestinian leader. Israel has acknowledged working with Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces loyal to the Western-backed Abbas, but the diplomatic memo leaked by WikiLeaks describes a level of cooperation that could fuel criticism of Abbas by his Islamist rivals. The 2007 cable quoted Yuval Diskin, the head of Israel’s Shin Bet internal security service, as saying the PA security apparatus shares with Israel “almost all the intelligence that it collects.” via Israel, Palestinians worked against Hamas – U.S. news – WikiLeaks in Security – msnbc.com. _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
(and watch the 'Federal Reserve' cr*p on 'Real News', but that needs putting in the banking section, and I don't got time at present).
Groan! again, but on the bright side, they do tend to expose themselves! _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
I mean CIA, FBI etc. is thrown in everywhere too but where is the proof there?