Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Official WikiLeaks Thread

    avatar
    Austin

    Posts : 7618
    Points : 8015
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty WikiLeaks : Nicknames used by US officials for leaders around the world

    Post  Austin Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 am

    WikiLeaks : Nicknames used by US officials for leaders around the world

    * French President Nicolas Sarkozy: 'Emperor with no clothes'
    * Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi: 'Feckless, vain and ineffective as a modern European leader'
    * Russian President Dmitry Medvedev: 'Plays Robin to Putin's Batman'
    * Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin: An 'Alpha Dog'
    * Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Like 'Hitler'
    * North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il: 'Flabby old chap'
    avatar
    lulldapull

    Posts : 289
    Points : 324
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : Nagoya

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  lulldapull Fri Dec 31, 2010 7:37 am

    Bhuwahahhaaaaaaa.......Laughing  Laughing

    As if we don't know the 'secret' about all these shit countries like Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan and the Gulf baboons.

    Mobarak the donkey is probably on top of that shit list!Laughing


    Assange: Many Top Arab Officials Are CIA Spies


    WikiLeaks to Name Names if He Is Assassinated
    by Jason Ditz, December 30, 2010
    Email This | Print This | Share This | Antiwar Forum

    In an interview with the Arabic-language version of al-Jazeera, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange revealed that a large number of the documents that his organization is in possession of prove that top officials across the Arab world have been spying on their own governments on behalf of the CIA.

    “These officials are spies for the US in their countries,” reported Assange, adding that there was also information proving allegations that the US regularly sends “suspects” to some nations for torture.

    The interviewer, Ahmed Mansour, confirmed during the interview that Assange had personally shown him some of the documents backing up his allegations. Neither, however, provided any specific names (though Assange’s comments implied Egypt was one of the nations involved).

    The lack of names was deliberate, according to Assange, who said that his organization is trying to protect itself by trickling out only small portions of its documents, and with names removed. He added that the organization was ready to name names and release documents en masse if he winds up assassinated. A number of top US politicans have openly called for his killing.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28649
    Points : 29179
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  GarryB Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:11 am

    An Australian the world can be proud of.

    And it is not because he is revealing the US's dirty secrets.

    Funny how truth, justice and the American way has suddenly become... the truth can hurt American interests.
    Clearly the American way must therefore be deceit, lies, and intrigue.

    Assange would be a Nobel Prize winner if he was Chinese and the secrets he was leaking were Chinese government secrets...

    Now I am glad he didn't win as this prize has lost all integrity.
    It is a western political tool to tell others to live by standards even the west does not meet.
    avatar
    lulldapull

    Posts : 289
    Points : 324
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : Nagoya

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  lulldapull Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:09 am

    Garry, a lot of American shitbilly's on a lot of forums are baying for Assange's blood these days...Fukk them is what I say......fukking terrorist/ rapist cheerleaders.

    They hate the fact that how dare he expose the (documented) truth......what and which is fairly obvious to the not so gullible! Very Happy

    So all these Mobarak's, King Hasan, King Aabdoola and Zardari's and their intelligence outfits and their complicity in not only terror but also torture is now revealed........

    Bhuwahahahaaa Laughing
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 1561
    Points : 1735
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  ahmedfire Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:36 am

    lulldapull wrote:Bhuwahahhaaaaaaa.......Laughing Laughing

    As if we don't know the 'secret' about all these shit countries like Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan and the Gulf baboons.

    Mobarak the donkey is probably on top of that shit list!Laughing

    did Assange said that mubarak is acia spy ??!
    if he said that would you believe him ?!!
    if you know some of mubarak situations against america,you will be surprise my dear boy !
    when you want to know what is egypt,just read history Rolling Eyes ,we have a 7000 years of civilization (in that time there is no america or australia),so some respect you should offer here !

    not aperson like assange or any person would move our trust on ourselves !
    don't forget
    we are pharoes

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Tutankhamun_Mask
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 1561
    Points : 1735
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  ahmedfire Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:44 am

    lulldapull wrote:Garry, a lot of American shitbilly's on a lot of forums are baying for Assange's blood these days...Fukk them is what I say......fukking terrorist/ rapist cheerleaders.

    They hate the fact that how dare he expose the (documented) truth......what and which is fairly obvious to the not so gullible! Very Happy

    So all these Mobarak's, King Hasan, King Aabdoola and Zardari's and their intelligence outfits and their complicity in not only terror but also torture is now revealed........

    Bhuwahahahaaa Laughing
    obvious to me now that you still too young ,you need to read my dear boy,read alot in politics ,read all points of views,you need more culture,you just repeating what you see in your tv's movies..!!


    Last edited by ahmedfire on Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    lulldapull

    Posts : 289
    Points : 324
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : Nagoya

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  lulldapull Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:46 am

    Hey buddy.......nothing against your ancient history or whatever........

    Right now Mr Mobarak soaps up Obama's balls, and then drinks the dirty wash, is what Assange has essentially indicated. If Egypt didn't do that then your country probably would go hungry!

    The same goes for The Kings of Saudi Haramia and shitty little Jordan, which are defacto occupied by the U.S. and the Zionists. Very Happy
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 1561
    Points : 1735
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  ahmedfire Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:04 am

    lulldapull wrote:Hey buddy.......nothing against your ancient history or whatever........

    Right now Mr Mobarak soaps up Obama's balls, and then drinks the dirty wash, is what Assange has essentially indicated. If Egypt didn't do that then your country probably would go hungry!

    The same goes for The Kings of Saudi Haramia and shitty little Jordan, which are defacto occupied by the U.S. and the Zionists. Very Happy
    not usa or any country would order us,if you don't know pharoes ,i'll tell you,they have abig trust on themselves ,stubborn...
    our economy is the biggest in africa
    our army is the biggest here
    not that shit israel or even america could order us,,if you don't know,we defeated the both in 1973 war..read history my dear..!
    >>>>
    by the way ,is that obama ans king saudi !
    Official WikiLeaks Thread Eredf


    Last edited by ahmedfire on Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:31 am; edited 1 time in total
    nightcrawler
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 522
    Points : 634
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 31
    Location : Pakistan

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  nightcrawler Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:19 am

    Mods create a sticky thread named WikiLeaks & move all the coming related news to that thread
    avatar
    lulldapull

    Posts : 289
    Points : 324
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : Nagoya

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  lulldapull Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:44 am

    oh I am loving this now! Very Happy

    An Egyptian peasant is on a hollow high here fellas.......Laughing

    Bhuwahahahaaaaaa Laughing

    On a better note here, I also believe that Assange is a CIA agent as well and is being told to deliberately leak this info as these leaks help the U.S. policy in the long run!

    Once the Saudi monkeys are finger pointed as a destabilizing force in the mideast with their terror dollars, then its better to wean off these stupid countries like Jordan, Egypt, Morrocco etc. off the U.S. teat.

    I don't think there will be a fallout from Wiki as what is being released by Assange is old news anyway.....While this buffoon is on a third world 'Pharoah' trip............

    Check this out guys:

    Who is Behind Wikileaks?


    By Michel Chossudovsky

    URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389

    Global Research, December 13, 2010



    "World bankers, by pulling a few simple levers that control the flow of money, can make or break entire economies. By controlling press releases of economic strategies that shape national trends, the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on this nation's economic structure, but can extend that control world wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain in the background, invisible to the average citizen." (Aldus Huxley)

    Wikleaks is upheld as a breakthrough in the battle against media disinformation and the lies of the US government.

    Unquestionably, the released documents constitute an important and valuable data bank. The documents have been used by critical researchers since the outset of the Wikileaks project. Wikileaks earlier revelations have focussed on US war crimes in Afghanistan (July 2010) as well as issues pertaining to civil liberties and the "militarization of the Homeland" (see Tom Burghardt, Militarizing the "Homeland" in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis, Global Research, October 11, 2008)

    In October 2010, WikiLeaks was reported to have released some 400,000 classified Iraq war documents, covering events from 2004 to 2009 (Tom Burghardt, The WikiLeaks Release: U.S. Complicity and Cover-Up of Iraq Torture Exposed, Global Research, October 24, 2010). These revelations contained in the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs provide "further evidence of the Pentagon's role in the systematic torture of Iraqi citizens by the U.S.-installed post-Saddam regime." (Ibid)

    Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor. Our own website Global Research has provided extensive coverage of the Wikileaks project.

    The leaks are heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media censorship.

    But there more than meets the eye.

    Even prior to the launching of the project, the mainstream media had contacted Wikileaks.

    There are also reports from published email exchanges that Wikileaks had entered into negotiations with several corporate foundations for funding. (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).

    The linchpin of WikiLeaks's financial network is Germany's Wau Holland Foundation. ... "We're registered as a library in Australia, we're registered as a foundation in France, we're registered as a newspaper in Sweden," Mr. Assange said. WikiLeaks has two tax-exempt charitable organizations in the U.S., known as 501C3s, that "act as a front" for the website, he said. He declined to give their names, saying they could "lose some of their grant money because of political sensitivities."

    Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks gets about half its money from modest donations processed by its website, and the other half from "personal contacts," including "people with some millions who approach us...." (WikiLeaks Keeps Funding Secret, WSJ.com, August 23, 2010)

    At the outset in early 2007, Wikileaks acknowledges that it was "founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa".... [Its advisory board] includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers." (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).

    Wikileaks formulated its mandate on its website as follows: [Wikileaks will be] "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations," CBC News - Website wants to take whistleblowing online, January 11, 2007, emphasis added).

    This mandate was confirmed by Julian Assange in June 2010 interview in the New Yorker:

    "Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations. In an invitation to potential collaborators in 2006, he wrote, “Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations...." (quoted in WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, emphasis added)

    Assange also intimated that "exposing secrets" "could potentially bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the US administration." (Ibid)

    From the outset, Wikileaks' geopolitical focus on "oppressive regimes" in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and Central Asia was "appealing", i.e. consistent with US foreign policy.

    The composition of the Wikileaks team, not to mention the methodology of "exposing secrets" of foreign governments, were in line with the practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering "regime change".

    The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New York Times

    Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel are directly involved in the editing and selection of leaked documents. The Economist and Time Magazine have also played an important role.

    While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment and concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks releases of embassy cables have been carefully "redacted" by the mainstream media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview with David E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8, 2010)

    This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between several major US and European newspapers and Wikileaks' editor Julian Assange.

    The important question is who controls and oversees the selection, distribution and editing of released documents to the broader public?

    What US foreign policy objectives are being served through this redacting process?

    Is Wikileaks part of an awakening of public opinion, of a battle against the lies and fabrications which appear daily in the print media and on network TV?

    If so, how can this battle against media disinformation be waged with the participation and collaboration of the corporate architects of media disinformation.

    Julian Assange has enlisted the architects of media disinformation to fight media disinformation: An incongruous and self-defeating procedure.

    America's corporate media and more specifically the New York Times are an integral part of the economic establishment, with links to Wall Street, the Washington think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

    Moreover, the US corporate media has developed a longstanding relationship to the US intelligence apparatus, going back to "Operation Mocking Bird", an initiative of the CIA's Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s.

    Even before the Wikileaks project got off the ground, the mainstream media was implicated. A role was defined and agreed upon for the corporate media not only in the release, but also in the selection and editing of the leaks. In a bitter irony, the "professional media" to use Julian Assange's words in an interview with The Economist, have been partners in the Wikileaks project from the outset.

    Moreover, key journalists with links to the US foreign policy-national security intelligence establishment have worked closely with Wikileaks, in the distribution and dissemination of the leaked documents.

    In a bitter irony, Wikileaks partner, The New York Times which has consistently promoted media disinformation is now being accused of conspiracy. For what? For revealing the truth? Or for manipulating the truth? In the words of Senator Joseph L. Lieberman:

    “I certainly believe that WikiLleaks has violated the Espionage Act, but then what about the news organizations — including The Times — that accepted it and distributed it?” Mr. Lieberman said, adding: “To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, and whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.” (WikiLeaks Prosecution Studied by Justice Department - NYTimes.com, December 7, 2010)

    This "redacting" role of The New York Times is candidly acknowledged by David E Sanger, Chief Washington correspondent of the NYT:

    "[W]e went through [the cables] so carefully to try to redact material that we thought could be damaging to individuals or undercut ongoing operations. And we even took the very unusual step of showing the 100 cables or so that we were writing from to the U.S. government and asking them if they had additional redactions to suggest." (See PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media, PBS interview on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross: December 8, 2010, emphasis added).

    Yet he also says later in the interview:

    "It is the responsibility of American journalism, back to the founding of this country, to get out and try to grapple with the hardest issues of the day and to do it independently of the government." (ibid)

    "Do it independently of the government" while at the same time "asking them [the US government] if they had additional redactions to suggest"?

    David E. Sanger cannot be described as a model independent journalist. He is member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Institute's Strategy Group which regroups the likes of Madeleine K. Albright, Condoleeza Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, Robert.B. Zoellick (president of the World Bank), and Philip Zelikow (formerly executive director of the 9/11 Commission) (among other prominent establishment figures). (See also F. William Engdahl, Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job, Global Research, December 10, 2010).

    Several American journalists, members of the Council on Foreign Relations interviewed Wikileaks, including Time Magazine's Richard Stengel (November 30, 2010) and The New Yorker's Raffi Khatchadurian. (WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 11, 2007)

    Historically, The New York Times has served the interests of the Rockefeller family in the context of a longstanding relationship. The current New York Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, son of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and grandson of Arthur Hays Sulzberger who served as a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation. Ethan Bronner, deputy foreign editor of The New York Times as well as Thomas Friedman among others are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

    In turn, the Rockefellers have an important stake as shareholders of several US corporate media. (Membership Roster - Council on Foreign Relations)

    The Embassy and State Department Cables

    It should come as no surprise that David E. Sanger and his colleagues at the NYT centered their attention on a highly "selective" dissemination of the Wikileaks cables, focussing on areas which would support US foreign policy interests: Iran's nuclear program, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's support of al Qaeda, China's relations with North Korea, etc. These releases were then used as source material in NYT articles and commentary.

    The Embassy and State Department cables released by Wikileaks were redacted and filtered. They were used for propaganda purposes. They do not constitute a complete and continuous set of memoranda.

    From a selected list of cables, the leaks are being used to justify a foreign policy agenda. A case in point is Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, which is the object of numerous State Department memos, as well Saudi Arabia's support of Islamic terrorism.

    Iran's Nuclear Program

    The leaked cables are used to feed the disinformation campaign concerning Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the leaked cables are heralded as "evidence" that Iran constitutes a threat, the lies and fabrications of the corporate media concerning Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program are not mentioned, nor is there any mention of them in the leaked cables.

    The leaks, once they are funnelled into the corporate news chain, edited and redacted by the New York Times, indelibly serve the broader interests of US foreign policy, including US-NATO-Israel war preparations directed against Iran.

    With the regard to "leaked intelligence" and the coverage of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, David E. Sanger has played a crucial role. In November 2005, The New York Times published a report co-authored by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad entitled "Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims".

    The article refers to mysterious documents on a stolen Iranian laptop computer which included "a series of drawings of a missile re-entry vehicle" which allegedly could accommodate an Iranian produced nuclear weapon:

    "In mid-July, senior American intelligence officials called the leaders of the international atomic inspection agency to the top of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer.

    The Americans flashed on a screen and spread over a conference table selections from more than a thousand pages of Iranian computer simulations and accounts of experiments, saying they showed a long effort to design a nuclear warhead, according to a half-dozen European and American participants in the meeting.

    The documents, the Americans acknowledged from the start, do not prove that Iran has an atomic bomb. They presented them as the strongest evidence yet that, despite Iran's insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, the country is trying to develop a compact warhead to fit atop its Shahab missile, which can reach Israel and other countries in the Middle East."(William J. Broad and David E. Sanger Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims - New York Times, November 13, 2005)

    These "secret documents" were subsequently submitted by the US State Department to the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, with a view to demonstrating that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons program. They were also used as a pretext to enforce the economic sanctions regime directed against Iran, adopted by the UN Security Council.

    While their authenticity has been questioned, a recent article by investigative reporter Gareth Porter confirms unequivocally that the mysterious laptop documents are fake. (See Gareth Porter, Exclusive Report: Evidence of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program May Be Fraudulent, Global Research, November 18, 2010)

    The drawings contained in the documents leaked by William J. Broad and David E. Sanger do not pertain to the Shahab missile but to an obsolete North Korean missile system which was decommissioned by Iran in the mid-1990s. The drawings presented by US State Department officials pertained to the "Wrong Missile Warhead":

    In July 2005, ... Robert Joseph, US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, made a formal presentation on the purported Iranian nuclear weapons program documents to the agency's leading officials in Vienna. Joseph flashed excerpts from the documents on the screen, giving special attention to the series of technical drawings or "schematics" showing 18 different ways of fitting an unidentified payload into the re-entry vehicle or "warhead" of Iran's medium-range ballistic missile, the Shahab-3. When IAEA analysts were allowed to study the documents, however, they discovered that those schematics were based on a re-entry vehicle that the analysts knew had already been abandoned by the Iranian military in favor of a new, improved design. The warhead shown in the schematics had the familiar "dunce cap" shape of the original North Korean No Dong missile, which Iran had acquired in the mid-1990s. ... The laptop documents had depicted the wrong re-entry vehicle being redesigned. ... (Gareth Porter, op cit, emphasis added)

    David E, Sanger, who worked diligently with Wikileaks was also instrumental in the New York Times "leak" of what Gareth Porter describes as fake intelligence.(Ibid)

    While this issue of fake intelligence received virtually no media coverage, it invalidates outright Washington's assertions regarding Iran's alleged nuclear weapons.

    In a bitter irony, the selective redacting of the embassy cables by the NYT has usefully served not only to dismiss the issue of fake intelligence but also to reinforce Washington's claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. A case in point is a November 2010 article co-authored by David E. Sanger, which quotes the Wikileaks cables as a source;

    "Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a [Wikileaks] cable dated Feb. 24 of this year.... (WikiLeaks Archive — Iran Armed by North Korea - NYTimes.com, November 28, 2010).

    These missiles are said to have the "capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe or easily reach Moscow, and American officials warned that their advanced propulsion could speed Iran’s development of intercontinental ballistic missiles." (Ibid, emphasis added).

    Wikileaks, Iran and the Arab World

    The released wikileaks cables have also being used to create divisions between Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States on the other:

    "After WikiLeaks claimed that certain Arab states are concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and have urged the U.S. to take [military] action to contain Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took advantage of the issue and said that the released cables showed U.S. concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program are shared by the international community." Tehran Times : WikiLeaks promoting Iranophobia, December 5, 2010)

    The Western media has jumped on this opportunity and has quoted the State Department memoranda released by Wikleaks with a view to upholding Iran as a threat to global security as well as fostering divisions between Iran and the Arab world.

    "The Global War on Terrorism"

    The leaks quoted by the Western media reveal the support of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to several Islamic terrorist organization, a fact which is known and amply documented.

    What the reports fail to mention, however, which is crucial in an understanding of the "Global War on Terrorism", is that US intelligence historically has channelled its support to terrorist organizations via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. REF These are covert intelligence operations using Saudi and Pakistani intelligence as intermediaries.

    The use of the Wikleaks documents by the media tend to sustain the illusion that the CIA has nothing to do with the terror network and that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are "providing the lion's share of funding" to Al Qaeda, the Taliban Lashkar-e-Taiba, among others, when in fact this financing is undertaken in liaison with their US intelligence counterparts.

    "The information came to light in the latest round of documents released Sunday by Wikileaks. In their communiques to the State Department, U.S. embassies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states describe a situation in which wealthy private donors, often openly, lavishly support the same groups against whom Saudi Arabia claims to be fighting." ( Wikileaks: Saudis, Gulf States Big Funders of Terror Groups - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News)

    Similarly, with regard to Pakistan:

    The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organizations, make it clear that underneath public reassurances lie deep clashes [between the U.S. and Pakistan] over strategic goals on issues like Pakistan's support for the Afghan Taliban and tolerance of Al Qaeda,..." (Wary Dance With Pakistan in Nuclear World, The New York Times December 1, 2010

    The corporate media's use and interpretation of the Wikileaks cables serves to uphold two related myths:

    1) Iran has nuclear weapons program and constitutes a threat to global security.

    2) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are state sponsors of Al Qaeda. They are financing Islamic terrorist organizations which are intent upon attacking the US States and its NATO allies.

    The CIA and the Corporate Media

    The CIA's relationship to the US media is amply documented. The New York Times continues to entertain a close relationship with not only with US intelligence, but also with the Pentagon and more recently with the Department of Homeland Security.

    "Operation Mocking Bird" was an initiative of the CIA's Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s. Its objective was to exert influence on both the US as well as foreign media. From the 1950s, members of the US media were routinely enlisted by the CIA.

    The inner workings of the CIA's relationship to the US media are described in Carl Bernstein's 1977 article in Rolling Stone entitled The CIA and the Media:

    [M]ore than 400 American journalists who [had] secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. [1950-1977]Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. ... Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners,... Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work....;

    Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune. The CIA and the Media by Carl Bernstein

    Bernstein suggests, in this regard, that "the CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress" (Ibid).

    In recent years, the CIA's relationship to the media has become increasingly complex and sophisticated. We are dealing with mammoth propaganda network involving a number of agencies of government.

    Media disinformation has become institutionalized. The lies and fabrications have become increasingly blatant when compared to the 1950s. The US media has become the mouthpiece of US foreign policy. Disinformation is routinely "planted" by CIA operatives in the newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels:

    "A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain."(Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation of 9/11, Global Research, September 19, 2002)

    Since 2001, the US media has assumed a new role in sustaining the Global War on Terrorism and camouflaging US sponsored war crimes. In the wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics: "The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across the world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002, see also michel Chossudovsky, War Propaganda, January 3, 2003).

    Today's corporate media is an instrument of war propaganda, which begs the question as to why the NYT would all of a sudden promote transparency and truth in media, by assisting Wikileaks in "spreading the word"; and that people around the World would not pause for one moment and question the basis of this incongruous relationship.

    On the surface, nothing proves that Wikileaks was a CIA covert operation. However, given the corporate media's cohesive and structured relationship to US intelligence, not to mention the links of individual journalists to the military-national security establishment, the issue of a CIA sponsored PsyOp must necessarily be addressed.

    Wikileaks Social and Corporate Entourage

    Wikileaks and The Economist have also entered into what seems to be a contradictory relationship. Wikileaks founder and editor Julian Assange was granted in 2008 The Economist's New Media Award.

    The Economist has a close relationship to Britain's financial elites. It is an establishment news outlet, which has consistently supported Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. It bears the stamp of the Rothschild family. Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972-1989. His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist's board. The Rothschild family also has a sizeable shareholder interest in The Economist.

    The broader question is why would Julian Assange receive the support from Britain's foremost establishment news outfit which has consistently been involved in media disinformation?

    Are we not dealing with a case of "manufactured dissent", whereby the process of supporting and rewarding Wikileaks for its endeavors, becomes a means of controlling and manipulating the Wikileaks project, while at the same time embedding it into the mainstream media.

    It is also worth mentioning another important link. Julian Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), a major London elite law, happens to be the legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust. While this in itself does prove anything, it should nonetheless be examined in the broader context of Wikileaks' social and corporate entourage: the NYT, the CFR, The Economist, Time Magazine, Forbes, Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), etc.

    Manufacturing Dissent

    Wikileaks has the essential features of a process of "manufactured dissent". It seeks to expose government lies. It has released important information on US war crimes. But once the project becomes embedded in the mould of mainstream journalism, it is used as an instrument of media disinformation:

    "It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent. To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition... To be effective, however, the process of "manufacturing dissent" must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement " (See Michel Chossudovsky, "Manufacturing Dissent": the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites, September 2010)

    What this examination of the Wikileaks project also suggests is that the mechanics of New World Order propaganda, particularly with regard to its military agenda, has become increasingly sophisticated.

    It no longer relies on the outright suppression of the facts regarding US-NATO war crimes. Nor does it require that the reputation of government officials at the highest levels, including the Secretary of State, be protected. New World Order politicians are in a sense "disposable". They can be replaced. What must be protected and sustained are the interests of the economic elites, which control the political apparatus from behind the scenes.

    In the case of Wikileaks, the facts are contained in a databank; many of those facts, particularly those pertaining to foreign governments serve US foreign policy interests. Other facts tend, on the other hand to discredit the US administration.

    All these facts are selectively redacted, they are then "analyzed" and interpreted by a media which serves the economic elites.

    While the numerous facts contained in the Wikileaks data bank are accessible, the broader public will not normally take the trouble to consult and scan through the Wikileaks databank. The public will read the redacted selections and interpretations presented in major news outlets.

    A partial and biased picture is presented. The redacted version is accepted by public opinion because it is based on what is heralded as a reliable source, when in fact what is presented in the pages of major newspapers and on network TV is a carefully crafted and convoluted distortion of the truth.

    Limited forms of critical debate and "transparency" are tolerated while also enforcing broad public acceptance of the basic premises of US foreign policy, including its "Global War on Terrorism". With regard to a large segment of the US antiwar movement, this strategy seems to have succeeded: "We are against war but we support the "war on terrorism".

    What this means is that truth in media can only be reached by dismantling the propaganda apparatus, --i.e. breaking the legitimacy of the corporate media which sustains the broad interests of the economic elites as well America's global military design.

    In turn, we must ensure that the campaign against Wikileaks in the U.S., using the 1917 Espionage Act, will not be utilized as a means to wage a campaign to control the internet.


    Please support Global Research
    Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.


    Your endorsement is greatly appreciated

    Subscribe to the Global Research e-newsletter
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 1561
    Points : 1735
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  ahmedfire Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:04 pm

    oh I am loving this now! Very Happy

    An Egyptian peasant is on a hollow high here fellas.......Laughing

    Bhuwahahahaaaaaa Laughing

    On a better note here, I also believe that Assange is a CIA agent as well and is being told to deliberately leak this info as these leaks help the U.S. policy in the long run!

    Once the Saudi monkeys are finger pointed as a destabilizing force in the mideast with their terror dollars, then its better to wean off these stupid countries like Jordan, Egypt, Morrocco etc. off the U.S. teat.

    I don't think there will be a fallout from Wiki as what is being released by Assange is old news anyway.....While this buffoon is on a third world 'Pharoah' trip............
    told you before ,you need to read more my dear,don't let hollywood movies blind you !! we defeated israel and america in 1973 war,ask them about what they face in it..i surprise from your intolerance affraid
    avatar
    lulldapull

    Posts : 289
    Points : 324
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : Nagoya

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  lulldapull Fri Dec 31, 2010 12:47 pm

    Dude, you are trying to derail this topic by bringing in your defeat in the 73 war.....and your defeat in the 48 war...and your defeat in the 56 war...and of course the mother of all defeats the 67 war. lol!

    Now I will start another topic elsewhere where you can babble about your repeated defeats.....ok...?

    P.S. Your only victory has been your collusion with the Zionist bitches in starving your fellow naked and hungry countrymen in Gaza......thats about it. thumbsup
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 1561
    Points : 1735
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  ahmedfire Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:01 pm

    lulldapull wrote:Dude, you are trying to derail this topic by bringing in your defeat in the 73 war.....and your defeat in the 48 war...and your defeat in the 56 war...and of course the mother of all defeats the 67 war. lol!

    Now I will start another topic elsewhere where you can babble about your repeated defeats.....ok...?

    P.S. Your only victory has been your collusion with the Zionist bitches in starving your fellow naked and hungry countrymen in Gaza......thats about it. thumbsup
    gaza??
    egypt is the first supplier to gaza with food and fuel and..etc
    in 1967 war,we didn't fight,our army was in yemen war..
    your information need to modernize Very Happy
    you should read history,,pathetic you are clown
    avatar
    lulldapull

    Posts : 289
    Points : 324
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : Nagoya

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  lulldapull Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:16 pm

    Sure buddy.......no matter which way you cut the shit......it still stays 'shit'.......

    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 1561
    Points : 1735
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  ahmedfire Fri Dec 31, 2010 4:53 pm

    lulldapull wrote:Sure buddy.......no matter which way you cut the shit......it still stays 'shit'.......

    you will never change Rolling Eyes
    Russian Patriot
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1161
    Points : 2049
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 30
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  Russian Patriot Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:47 pm

    Now now ,please get along Lulldapull and Ahmedfire, you never know maybe when you guys get along , you will learn something new or gain a new source of info as Assange liked to tell reporters!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28649
    Points : 29179
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  GarryB Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:12 am

    They hate the fact that how dare he expose the (documented) truth......what and which is fairly obvious to the not so gullible!

    Even a cynic needs evidence and even if most of what has been revealed has been suspected all along it makes a huge difference to have it out in the open like this.

    did Assange said that mubarak is acia spy ??!
    if he said that would you believe him ?!!
    if you know some of mubarak situations against america,you will be surprise my dear boy !
    when you want to know what is egypt,just read history Rolling Eyes ,we have a 7000 years of civilization (in that time there is no america or australia),so some respect you should offer here !

    If Assange was making this all up then rather than wasting time whining the US would simply come up with proof that he is lying and it will all go away. Wikileaks would just become like the Sun Newspaper... a UFO story paper.

    The real threat of Assange to US national security is that his sources come from within the US security system. Clearly there are plenty within this system that believe in real moral values rather than the lies and BS coming from the White House and they want to expose the American governments for what they have been. Lying deceitful scumbags no better than what they claim their enemies were.

    This is not a shot at American people anymore than corruption of Egyptian officials reflects on the rich history of that great nation.

    The real test is the reaction. What will the people of the US and Egypt and the other countries involved do about it. Sadly most will put up with it believing it was all done in their best interests.

    This is like accepting murder as being OK as long as it doesn't effect you or your family.

    Who is Behind Wikileaks?

    By Michel Chossudovsky

    Looks to me to be another attempt to undermine the credibility of Wikileaks... presumably a subterfuge to pretend to examine the "evidence" and come up with the conclusion that the CIA is all reaching and all powerful. The CIA benefits from the problems and conflicts in the world and countries sucking from the teet of the US taxpayer is an enormous source of power and opportunity to skim a bit of cream here and there. No one would lose more power and money than the US from cutting off all the bludger countries.

    The reality is that most of the worlds media is already under the control of the rich and powerful... whether you believe they are Zionists or illuminati or whatever it doesn't really matter, what matters is they will try any method possible to undermine wikileaks because they are the competition and companies don't like credible competition especially in the media market because they act as a filter to your message that can turn your drones... your robots... automations against you.
    Wikileaks would be happy to bring down systems when they are clearly corrupt. The media is owned by rich powerful people who got their riches from these faulty systems and they don't want the system to change.
    Those faulty systems will of course prevail... most likely by censorship of the Internet, and such censorship can only get worse but it is OK because your media will tell you it is for the fight against terrorism and to preserve your freedom to only hear the truth from them.
    ahmedfire
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 1561
    Points : 1735
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : The Land Of Pharaohs

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  ahmedfire Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:52 am

    ok we are waiting for mr assange !!
    Russian Patriot
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1161
    Points : 2049
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 30
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Official Wiki Leaks Thread!

    Post  Russian Patriot Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:48 pm

    WikiLeaks: Iran Missiles 10 Minutes from Israel


    (AP) OSLO, Norway (AP) - Israel believes it would have only 10-12 minutes' warning if Iran launched rockets but that threats from Hamas and Hezbollah are the most pressing, according to leaked U.S. State Department cables published in a Norwegian newspaper.

    The Aftenposten daily on Sunday cited a cable describing a Nov. 15, 2009, meeting between an American congressional delegation and Israel's military chief in which he reportedly said Israel was preparing to defend itself against such attacks.

    The paper quoted Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi as telling the delegation that Iran has 300 Shihab rockets which could reach Israel. Some 1 million Israelis would be at risk from attacks from the country's enemies in the region, including Hezbollah and Hamas, he said.

    CBS Special Report: WikiLeaks

    It also cited Israeli military leaders as saying the two militant groups are the most immediate threat to the country, with Lebanon's Hezbollah sitting on a stockpile of 40,000 rockets and Hamas having the capacity to attack Tel Aviv. The next war in the Middle East would take place in Lebanon and on the Gaza Strip, Ashkenazi said.

    The cables come from a trove of 250,000 uncensored U.S. diplomatic documents that secret-spilling site WikiLeaks has been making public. Aftenposten said last month it had obtained all the documents.

    Hamas took over Gaza soon after Israel pulled out in 2005, and Hezbollah took over most of southern Lebanon when Israel left in 2000.

    In separate U.S. cables dating back to talks in September 2009 between the Israeli military and an American congressional delegation, an officer from the Israeli Security Agency Shin Bet gave a detailed description of the situation in Gaza to U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

    According to Aftenposten, the officer said that six months after the Israeli attack against Gaza in 2008-2009, Hamas had already regained the same amount of weapons it had before the operation.

    He reportedly said that Hamas was working actively to develop its own weapons production and had been trying to obtain Iranian rockets that can reach Tel Aviv.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/03/world/main7209015.shtml?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.3
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28649
    Points : 29179
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  GarryB Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:57 pm

    The short warning time can be attributed to the flight speed of the rockets and the suggested inability of Israel and the US to be sure they know all the launch sites in Iran.
    If they knew all the launch sites and could monitor them then in addition to flight time they could add the preparation time of maybe 1 hour or more to the warning time.

    This of course all completely disguises the fact that Iran has never attacked Israel and has in the past had lots of reasons to do so yet has managed to refrain from doing so.

    Israel and the US are actually much greater threats to Iran than vice versa with the former country likely involved in the deaths of nuclear scientists in Iran and the US responsible for corrupting their system of government. They lost that control in 1979 of course when their puppet fled to the US. He had irradiated all the moderates in Iran and found he was left with radicals that didn't want to be ruled from the US.
    avatar
    lulldapull

    Posts : 289
    Points : 324
    Join date : 2010-03-29
    Location : Nagoya

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty WikiLeaks' Most Terrifying Revelation: Just How Much Our Government Lies to Us

    Post  lulldapull Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:49 am

    The U.S. Govt is a liar, and worst it is a fukking terrorist entity.

    WikiLeaks' Most Terrifying Revelation: Just How Much Our Government Lies to Us


    Wikileaks has shown that our government and military form a 'vast lying machine' that perpetrates mass murder in our name.
    January 3, 2011


    "Try as I may I can not escape the sound of suffering. Perhaps as an old man I will accept suffering with insouciance. But not now; men in their prime, if they have convictions are tasked to act on them."

    -- Julian Assange, 2007 blog entry

    Do you believe that it is in Americans' interest to allow a small group of U.S. leaders to unilaterally murder, maim, imprison and/or torture anyone they choose anywhere in the world, without the knowledge let alone oversight of their citizens or the international community? And, despite their proven record of failure to protect America -- from Indochina to Iran to Iraq -- do you believe they should be permitted to clandestinely expand their war-making without informed public debate? If so, you are betraying the principles upon which America was founded, endangering your nation, and displaying a distinctly "unamerican" subservience to unaccountable authority. But if you oppose autocratic power, you are called to support Wikileaks and others trying to limit U.S. Executive Branch mass murder abroad and failure to protect Americans at home.

    These two issues became officially linked for the first time when former U.S. Afghan commander General Stanley McChrystal explicitly stated that the murder of civilians increases rather than decreases the numbers of those committed to killing Americans, and actually implemented policies -- since reversed by General Petraeus -- to reduce U.S. murder of civilians. McChrystal said that “for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 new enemies." By so doing he made it clear that killing civilians is not only a moral and war crimes issue, but -- in today's interdependent world -- also threatens U.S. national security.

    As important as is the issue of free speech, it is the question of whether the U.S. Executive is in fact protecting the American people through its mass murder abroad that really lies at the heart of the Wikileaks controversy. Executive Branch officials justify persecuting and threatening to murder Assange on the grounds that he has damaged U.S. "national security." If McChrystal is right, however, it is the past decade of U.S. Executive mass murder in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, now revealed beyond any doubt by Wikileaks, that is the real threat to U.S. national security.

    The chilling fact is this: whether you believe that September 11, 2001 was due to incomprehensible fanaticism or genuine grievances, it seems likely that U.S. leaders’ murder of countless Muslims since 2001 will cause the next 9/11 should, God forbid, it occur, The recent suicide-bomber in Sweden who came perilously close to succeeding taped a message saying "so will your children, daughters, brothers, and sisters die, like our brothers, sisters, and children die." Similar sentiments were voiced by the Times Square bomber, and it is likely that those responsible for future American deaths will also be motivated by revenge for the hundreds of thousands of Muslims for whose deaths U.S. leaders are responsible since 2001.

    This is not, of course, to justify such attacks. Any attacks on civilians, whether by the Taliban or General Petraeus, are totally unjustified and crimes of war. But if the issue is how best to enhance U.S. national security, it is critical to rationally discuss the most prudent and sensible means of preventing further attacks -- which in this case is to stop creating huge numbers of people who want to kill Americans. If General McChrystal is correct, every American should tremble at the long-term danger to America caused by the last decade of U.S. war-making in the Muslim world. If only 1/100th of 1% of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are moved to want to attack America because of America's post-9/11 killing of Muslim civilians, for example, the U.S. Executive will have created a pool of 160,000 Muslims devoted to murdering Americans.

    Nothing is more emblematic of the service Assange is doing Americans than the July 25 N.Y. Times headline announcing its publication of the Wikileaks "Afghan War Logs": "View Is Bleaker Than Official Portrayal Of War In Afghanistan."

    The N.Y. Times thus not only acknowledged that Wikileaks had supplied Americans with vital information about the war that its own government was denying them, but that this information had not been provided by the U.S. mass media. If it had been doing its job, after all, America’s “newspaper of record” not Wikileaks would have long ago revealed that the Afghan war was "bleaker than official portrayal of the war." The Guardian newspaper's headline on the same day drove the point home: "Massive Leak Of Secret Files Exposes Truth Of Occupation," i.e. the truth as opposed to U.S. Executive lies.

    These "Afghan War Logs", like the Iraqi war logs after them, and much material in Wikileaks' recent release of diplomatic cables, reveal above all that U.S. Executive war-making is marked by massive deception of the American people -- particularly lying about (1) the enormous civilian casualties the U.S. is causing and (2) its claim to be pursuing a "counter-insurgency strategy" designed to install a democratic Afghan government. The Times and Guardian stories describe how these official U.S. documents reveal constant U.S. Executive Branch lying to the American people.

    -- U.S. MURDER OF CIVILIANS: "A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents," (Guardian) "Incident by incident, the reports resemble a police blotter of the myriad ways Afghan civilians were killed -- not just in airstrikes but in ones and twos -- in shootings on the roads or in the villages, in misunderstandings or in a cross-fire, or in chaotic moments when Afghan drivers ventured too close to convoys and checkpoints". (N.Y. Times) "The Nato coalition in Afghanistan has been using an undisclosed "black" unit of special forces, Task Force 373, to hunt down targets for death or detention without trial ... The logs reveal that TF 373 has also killed civilian men, women and children and even Afghan police officers who have strayed into its path." (Guardian)

    -- REGULAR COVERUPS OF U.S. CIVILIAN MURDER: "The dead, the reports repeatedly indicate, were not suicide bombers or insurgents, and many of the cases were not reported to the public at the time." (N.Y. Times) "War logs show how marines gave cleaned up accounts of an incident in which they killed 19 civilians ... There would be no punishment." (Guardian) "The logs detail how US special forces dropped six 2,000 lb bombs on a compound where they believed a `high-value individual' was hiding, after `ensuring there were no innocent Afghans in the surrounding area'. A senior US commander reported that 150 Taliban had been killed. Locals, however, reported that up to 300 civilians had died." (Guardian)

    -- U.S. AND A CORRUPT AFGHAN GOVERNMENT ARE ALIENATING AFGHAN CIVILIANS AND LOSING THE WAR: "The documents illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001 ... The reports paint a disheartening picture of the Afghan police (who) are often described as distrusted, even loathed, by Afghan civilians. The reports recount episodes of police brutality, corruption petty and large, extortion and kidnapping ... The toll of the war -- reflected in mounting civilian casualties -- left the Americans seeking cooperation and support from an Afghan population that grew steadily more exhausted, resentful, fearful and alienated ... The expanding (U.S.) special operations have stoked particular resentment among Afghans -- for their lack of coordination with local forces, the civilian casualties they frequently inflicted and the lack of the accountability." (N.Y. Times)

    When the Iraqi war logs were published 3 months later, they revealed even more shocking information -- particularly that U.S. soldiers had handed over Iraqi civilians to Iraqi police, knowing they would be hideously tortured employing electric drills, acid and other devices before being savagely murdered. Ellen Knickmeyer, the Washington Post Bureau chief in Baghdad in 2006, wrote that these revelations meant that U.S. officials had been lying daily to the U.S. media

    -- and American people -- by saying they were not aware of this mass murder. U. S. leaders also lied constantly in claiming they were not tracking civilian casualties, when in fact they were. Since international law made U.S. leaders responsible for providing law and order in occupied Iraq, these Wiklileaks cables thus also revealed that U.S. leaders bear a major responsibility for these warcrimes, among the worst since the end of WWII.

    Both the Wikileaks Iraqi and Afghan War Logs, in short, have revealed that the entire U.S. Executive is a "vast lying machine", as journalist David Halberstam described the U.S. military in his affadavit for the CBS vs. Westmoreland trial. It must be understood that “truth” vs. “lies” is not even an operational category within the Executive Branch or military. The purpose of communicating with the public is not to provide them with truthful information but rather to advance “the mission”. People who communicate with the public obtain their jobs and are promoted on the basis of their ability to mislead, deceive, “spin” and lie. There is no recorded case where Executive Branch officials have been rewarded for telling the truth to the American people, and many where they have been punished or lost their jobs for doing so. And nothing so epitomizes the degradation of democracy in America that the fact the public expects Executive Branch officials to lie to them, and that mass media journalists even betray their profession by defending Executive secrecy and excoriating those who reveal their lies like Julian Assange.

    It is thus impossible to overstate the importance of the Wikileaks documentation of these lies to the American people. When a journalist reports a U.S. government misdeed, government officials automatically deny it and many Americans are unsure whom to believe. But Wikileaks has revealed official government documents that prove U.S. leaders’ lying and commission of crimes of war. The fact that the U.S. has covered up its mass murder of civilians, and that this is contributing to its losing the war, is thus no longer open to serious question. The callous and careerist politicians and journalists who daily ignore U.S. mass murder, while calling for Assange's arrest or execution, shame themselves, their children, and their profession by their indifference to non-American human suffering and obsequious toadying to illegitimate Executive power.

    And the Wikileaks documents reveal something even more important: the entirely bogus nature of U.S. claims that Assange has damaged U.S. "national security", e.g. by revealing information that could help the “enemy.” It is obvious that the "enemy" knows whether those murdered by the U.S. are civilians. The U.S. Executive clearly claims it is only killing “insurgents” to keep its murder of civilians a secret from the American people, fearing it would face protests that could tie its hands if it became known.

    The Wikileaks documents, though they date from 2009 and before, also shed important light on what is occurring today under General David Petraeus.

    It is important to remember, after all, that the Wikileaks controversy is not primarily about the past or abstract legal issues, but what is happening to actual human beings today. As you read these words countless Afghan and Pakistani villagers are huddling in their homes, terrorized by U.S. war-making, as General Petraeus's brutal offensive into southern Afghanistan, met by an increase in the Taliban's resort to roadside bombs and assassination, has caused the Red Cross to issue an unusual alarm saying that conditions are at their worst for Afghan civilians in 30 years, i.e. as bad as during the Russian invasion. A Canadian press report indicates that Kandahar's main hospital is overflowing with civilian casualties, and that "on some days, the floor is red with blood".

    Petraeus has tripled air strikes, brought in 9,000 U.S. assassins who are conducting round-the-clock murder, and introduced an unprecedented number of night-time raids recalling Nazi movies from the 1940s -- as screaming U.S. soldiers break into people's homes, terrorize women and children, and kill, wound, torture or imprison men indefinitely without a trial or any chance to prove their innocence. Even the U.S.-installed Afghan President Hamid Karzai is so appalled that he has begged the U.S. to curtail its airstrikes and night raids, saying, “the raiding homes at night. Terrible. Terrible. A serious cause of the Afghan people's disenchantment with NATO and with the Afghan government … How can you measure the consequences of it in terms of the loss of life of children and women because you have captured Talib A. And who is this Talib A? Is he so important to have 10 more people killed, civilians? Who determines that?”

    Petraeus has firmly refused to end what this Afghan leader describes as the General’s responsibility for civilian murder, making a further mockery of his claim to be bringing “democracy” to Afghanistan.

    Particularly significant are the many first-person reports in the Wikileaks "Afghan War Logs" of U.S. murder of innocent civilians at U.S. checkpoints -- which flesh out McChrystal's March 2010 admission that "we have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat."

    For this raises a basic question about Petraeus's vast escalation of U.S. airstrikes. If U.S. forces have murdered countless innocent civilians at checkpoints, where they can at least see those they are killing face-to-face, how many more innocent civilians is Petraeus killing from from the air, in bombing raids where those below can barely be seen?

    And these Wikileaks documents also shed important light on how Petraeus's massive escalation into both southern Afghanistan and Pakistan, where he has dramatically escalated both U.S. drone and ground assassination, is weakening rather than strengthening long-term U.S. national security. Just as the Taliban is far stronger today after the U.S. has wasted $300 billion and thousands of American lives over the last 10 years, Petraeus's tactics are strengthening not weakening America's enemies over the long run. If he murders enough people in southern Afghanistan, the General may be able to claim some short-term successes there. But there is no serious question that his tactics are sowing a long-term whirlwind which not only threatens the stability of the Afghan and Pakistani governments, but pose a long-term threat to Americans at home.

    A U.N. map just published by the Wall Street Journal has revealed that the Taliban, using classic guerrilla tactics, has moved into northern and western Afghanistan as Petraeus has moved south, giving them control of more territory than ever. “Internal United Nations maps show a marked deterioration of the security situation in Afghanistan during this year's fighting season, countering the Obama administration's optimistic assessments of military progress since the surge of additional American forces began a year ago”, the Journal reported.

    The N.Y. Times has reported how various insurgent groups in Pakistan have responded to Petraeus's tactics by coordinating and cooperating for the first time, vastly increasing the threat they pose to the Pakistani state. It is also obvious that Petraeus cannot possible]y kill more "insurgents" than he is creating if he continues to provoke the 41 million Pashtuns on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to want to fight America. The population of North and South Vietnam combined during the Vietnam war was only 31 million, after all, and provided a manpower pool large enough to outlast 500,000 Americans.

    In the end, however, the most profound questions for Americans raised by the Wikileaks documents go far beyond the Muslim world. If we can free our minds of a lifetime of official propaganda identifying the U.S. Executive with the American people, the evidence is overwhelming that in foreign and military policy the U.S. Executive Branch is an undemocratic institution that does not represent its own citizens. It operates largely independent of Congress, the Judiciary or a mass media which has largely become an arm of Executive power, broadcasting its lies far more often than it exposes them.

    A few months before President Obama's December 2009 decision to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, for example, only 24% of Americans wanted to send more and 43% wanted to decrease the number. Their wishes were ignored, as are the opinions of Americans today who, by a margin of 63 to 32, oppose U.S. war-making in Afghanistan. And, Bob Woodward’s Obama’s Wars revealed, even the President is largely a figurehead when it comes to Executive war-making. Woodward documents how the military thwarted Obama’s clear desire to begin a major pullout from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011. Last month, Obama was humiliated by being forced to endorse a hypothetical 2014 pullout date.

    Most Americans would agree with the statement in the Declaration of Independence that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." But the governed can only give their consent if they are informed as to what they are agreeing to. This is obvious in our daily life. I cannot be said to have "consented" to buy your laptop if you deceived me by not telling me it was broken. One of our most basic legal principles is that a contract is null and void if it was obtained under false pretenses. By revealing massive U.S. Executive deceit Wikileaks has thus revealed that it does not legitimately represent the American people.

    These Wikileaks documents thus raise the most fundamental question citizens can ask themselves: to what extent to citizens of a democracy owe their allegiance to autocratic leaders who obtain the consent of their citizens through massive duplicity? And to what extent can they trust either their judgement or their decency?

    Americans may find themselves increasingly pondering such questions in coming years, as economic decline and future terrorist attacks cause U.S. elites to bring home the authoritarian mindset that has caused so much damage abroad. It seems certain that American democracy will face greater challenges than at any time since the country's founding.

    But that is a long-term question. The key question now is whether Americans can hear the sound of suffering their leaders are causing abroad, as at this very moment innocent men, women and children are being murdered and maimed in what the Red Cross describes as the greatest civilian carnage since the Russians invaded 30 years ago.

    Julian Assange should be applauded not persecuted for hearing the sound of their suffering.

    Do we?
    Fred Branfman exposed the U.S. Executive's Secret Air War in Laos, which illegally and savagely murdered tens of thousands of innocent Laotian peasants. He has written frequently on Executive war-making for Alternet in recent years. See www.trulyalive.org for more information on his activities.
    nightcrawler
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 522
    Points : 634
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 31
    Location : Pakistan

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  nightcrawler Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:02 pm

    Learn about Pakistan Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
    Something funny in times of Doom and Gloom.

    Unleaked leaks – The Express Tribune

    Anne Patterson to State Department, dispatch #420000, 10th July, 2009:

    I honestly can’t understand these Pakistanis. They’re pretty complicated people. In deference to local religious and cultural mores, I decided to wear a very modest, longish skirt while meeting Maulana Fuzzy (that’s my moniker: he’s all soft and hairy). He leered at me throughout the meeting. Finally he said it: “Weren’t you wearing a much shorter skirt when you met the PM?”:woot: I was taken aback. Before I could respond, he began beseeching me: “I really, really want to be the PM, too. Won’t you help me in this? I promise to round up all Taliban and hand ‘em over to you.” “Wait a minute, maulana,” I told him. “First of all, never mind my skirt length,” at which he made a long face and tugged his jihadist-style beard, “secondly, aren’t you supposed to be supporting this government?” He guffawed at this, his belly shook, and I thought it was October 2005 all over again. “Actually, I’m totally with them,” he retorted. “Except when I’m against them.”

    I think we should explore his Taliban offer, though. We shouldn’t skirt around the issue, if you excuse the pun. We should go for it, even if it involves a little more, uh, legwork, if you excuse another pun. Please dispatch a fresh shipment of shorter skirts urgently.Laughing

    Anne Patterson to State Department, dispatch #420111, 30th July, 2009:

    I must reiterate: of all known world leaders, Pakistan’s president is our biggest ally. Forget Blair, forget Brown, forget even Obama himself: this guy is more committed to American interests than anyone else I know. My aides tell me he was once declared mentally unstable by medical authorities but I’m sure that’s not the reason for his loyalty and anyone who suggests such a thing must be insane. I say we give him all the copious aid he’s demanding and then some.

    Anne Patterson to State Department, dispatch #420123, 14th Aug, 2009:

    Today, on Pakistan’s national day, and as part of our extensive PR drive to win Pakistani hearts and minds, I paid effusive homage to the country’s national poet during a lavish ceremony in Islamabad. I forget the guy’s name but I compared him to Whitman and Frost and lauded his efforts to bridge the East-West gap. My aides tell me he made no such effort but, heck, what’s the harm in saying it. The ceremony was attended by the (Lack of) Electricity Minister, Raja Pervez Ashraf who promised an early end to power outages through America’s help. My aides tell me we offered no such help but, heck, what’s the harm in saying it.

    Later we distributed free candies — stamped with miniature American flags and inscribed with “A gift from the people of the US”— to all the poor kids we could find around Margalla hills. All items were immediately and voraciously consumed. That’s so typical of Pakistanis.

    Anne Patterson to State Department, dispatch #420420, 19th Sep, 2009:

    An interesting day, all in all. I was interviewed by this local journalist/analyst as part of his weekly show, “One Day with Gee-Whiz News”. I call the chap “Soh Wretched”. He speaks in an infuriatingly slow drawl and asks obnoxious questions. I tried hard to convince him that America was not behind BB’s murder or the 2005 earthquake; nor were Bin Laden and Bush old school-chums. The interview then veered off to other things. He asked me if Americans preferred waxing to shaving and who was my first teenage crush and why.🤣

    Thank heavens American press isn’t as free as Pakistan’s!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28649
    Points : 29179
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  GarryB Sat Jan 15, 2011 1:32 am

    She sounds a bit naive.

    Doesn't she realise that any of the running dogs will offer anything they can and even things they can't offer to get the job of the top dog?
    Once you get the job you suddenly have the power to keep the job and it is not like you actually made any written promises for anything...

    A bit like the US during the 1990s with Russia. (ie verbal promises they knew would not be kept).
    Russian Patriot
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1161
    Points : 2049
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 30
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Julian Assange: Ecuador grants Wikileaks founder asylum

    Post  Russian Patriot Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:31 pm

    Ecuador has granted asylum to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange two months after he took refuge in its London embassy while fighting extradition from the UK.

    It cited fears that Mr Assange's human rights might be violated.

    Foreign Secretary William Hague said the UK would not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the country.

    But Ecuador's Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said his government would seek to negotiate with Britain over arrangements for Mr Assange to leave.

    "We don't think it is reasonable that, after a sovereign government has made the decision of granting political asylum, a citizen is forced to live in an embassy for a long period," he said.

    Mr Assange took refuge at the embassy in June to avoid extradition to Sweden, where he faces questioning over assault and rape claims, which he denies.

    Mr Patino had accused the UK of making an "open threat" to enter its embassy to arrest Mr Assange, an Australian national.

    Ecuador's foreign minister Ricardo Patino: "We believe that his fears are legitimate"

    Mr Assange said being granted political asylum by Ecuador was a "significant victory" and thanked staff in the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

    However, as the Foreign Office insisted the decision would not affect the UK's legal obligation to extradite him to Sweden, Mr Assange warned: "Things will get more stressful now."

    "It was not Britain or my home country, Australia, that stood up to protect me from persecution, but a courageous, independent Latin American nation," said Mr Assange, who watched the announcement with embassy staff in a live link to a press conference in Quito.

    "While today is a historic victory, our struggles have just begun. The unprecedented US investigation against Wikileaks must be stopped.


    Political asylum is not available to anyone facing a serious non-political crime - such as the allegations levelled against Mr Assange.

    But does his new status mean he can now leave his Swedish problems behind? No. Asylum does not equal immunity from prosecution - and Julian Assange needs safe passage through UK territory that he won't get.

    Mr Assange knows he can't leave without risking arrest by officers waiting outside. The police can't enter the embassy unless the government revokes its status.

    Embassy vehicles are protected by law from police searches - but how could he get into an Ecuadorean car without being apprehended? And what happens after he's in the car? At some point he will have to get out again. Stranger things have happened.

    In 1984 there was an attempt to smuggle a Nigerian man from the UK in a so-called "diplomatic bag" protected from inspection. The bag was in fact a large crate - and customs officers successfully intercepted it at the airport.



    "While today much of the focus will be on the decision of the Ecuadorean government, it is just as important that we remember Bradley Manning has been detained without trial for over 800 days," he said, referring to the former US soldier accused of leaking government material to Wikileaks.

    Mr Assange is expected to make a statement in front of the embassy on Sunday at 14:00 BST, according to the Wikileaks Twitter feed.
    'Legal obligation'

    Announcing Ecuador's decision, Mr Patino launched a strong attack on the UK for what he said was an "explicit type of blackmail".

    The UK Foreign Office had warned, in a note, that it could lift the embassy's diplomatic status to fulfil a "legal obligation" to extradite the 41-year-old by using the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987.

    That allows the UK to revoke the diplomatic status of an embassy on UK soil, which would potentially allow police to enter the building to arrest Mr Assange for breaching the terms of his bail.

    Mr Hague said it was a "matter of regret" that the Ecuadorean government decided to grant Mr Assange political asylum but warned that it "does not change the fundamentals" of the case.

    He also warned that it could drag on for some "considerable" time.

    "We will not allow Mr Assange safe passage out of the United Kingdom, nor is there any legal basis for us to do so," he said.

    Scuffles broke out outside the Ecuadorean embassy

    Mr Hague said there was "no threat" to storm the embassy.

    "We are talking about an Act of Parliament in this country which stresses that it must be used in full conformity with international law," he said.

    Mr Patino said Ecuador believed Mr Assange's fears of political persecution were "legitimate" and said his country was being loyal to its tradition of protecting those who were vulnerable.

    He later told BBC Mundo that conditions were attached to the asylum.

    "We placed the same type of conditions that are the norm in international relations, such as him [Mr Assange] not making political statements that could affect our relations with friendly countries."

    The Foreign Office said it was "disappointed" by the Ecuador statement and said it remained committed to reaching a "negotiated solution" that would allow it to carry out its "obligations under the Extradition Act". This means Mr Assange's arrest would still be sought if he left the embassy.
    Sweden summons ambassador

    The Swedish government reacted angrily to Mr Patino's suggestion that Mr Assange would not be treated fairly by its justice system, summoning Ecuador's ambassador to explain.


    Julian Assange's small, but vocal, band of supporters chanted loudly and marched along the street in front of the Ecuadorean Embassy when the news filtered through from Quito.

    They, like the man they have come here to support, regard Ecuador's decision as a significant victory against the UK, US and Sweden, all of which they claim are trying to silence Mr Assange.

    But Mr Assange's supporters also know there's little chance of the man they regard as a hero of free speech making a public appearance on the pavement opposite the world-famous green awnings of the Harrods department store.

    He would very likely be arrested if he stepped outside the Ecuadorean Embassy, where he is - for the moment at least - still protected by the diplomatic immunity granted to foreign government buildings on UK soil.

    Mr Assange is locked in a diplomatic and political stalemate. Ecuador may have granted him asylum, but he still has nowhere to go.

    "The accusations... are serious, and it is unacceptable that Ecuador would want to halt the Swedish judicial process and European judicial co-operation," said Anders Joerle, spokesman for the Swedish foreign ministry.

    The Organisation of American States called a special meeting at its Washington headquarters on Thursday to discuss the Ecuador-UK relationship, specifically Ecuador's diplomatic premises in the UK.

    The Union of South American Nations, meanwhile, has convened an "extraordinary meeting" in Ecuador on Sunday to consider "the situation raised at the embassy".

    Mr Assange entered the embassy after the UK's Supreme Court dismissed his bid to reopen his appeal against extradition and gave him a two-week grace period before extradition proceedings could start.

    It was during that fortnight, while on bail, that he sought refuge.

    A subsequent offer by Ecuador to allow Swedish investigators to interview Mr Assange inside the embassy was rejected.

    The Wikileaks website Mr Assange founded published a mass of leaked diplomatic cables that embarrassed several governments, particularly that of the US, in 2010.

    Mr Assange says he fears that if extradited to Sweden, he will then be passed on to the American authorities.

    In 2010, two female ex-Wikileaks volunteers accused Mr Assange of committing sexual offences against them while he was in Stockholm to give a lecture.

    Mr Assange claims the sex was consensual and the allegations are politically motivated.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19281492
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28649
    Points : 29179
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  GarryB Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:45 pm

    All the thieves that stole money from the Russian people in the 1990s run free in Britain but the British justice system has drawn the line regarding an Australian man over ACCUSATIONS regarding an alleged crime that is not even a crime in Britain.

    Choosing not to wear a condom is illegal in Sweden apparently.

    Sponsored content

    Official WikiLeaks Thread Empty Re: Official WikiLeaks Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:07 am