Julian Assange Discussion

[Laura]

From the NY Times piece:

¶ About 11,000 of the cables are marked “secret.” An additional 9,000 or so carry the label “noforn,” meaning the information is not to be shared with representatives of other countries, and 4,000 are marked “secret/noforn.” The rest are either marked with the less restrictive label “confidential” or are unclassified. Most were not intended for public view, at least in the near term.

¶ The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.

¶ After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself. In all, The Times plans to post on its Web site the text of about 100 cables — some edited, some in full — that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy.

 

[Laura]

The UK Telegraph points out, quite interestingly:

After all the ballyhoo before the fact, the Wikileaks revelations thus far are pretty underwhelming. Although we’ve been seeing figures like 2.7 million and 251,287 for the number of documents released, so far there have been, er, 220 posted on the Wikileaks site.

The rest of the 250,000+ have it seems, been given to the New York Times, Guardian and Der Spiegel so we’re getting little snippets filtered through these news outlets,

 

[Windmill knight]

US condemns Wikileaks diplomatic cables release

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11860435

Among the revelations is a report Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urged the US to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

To me this confirms that AIPAC or Mossad are indeed the Wikisource. The point of the above revelation being: 'You see? Even the Arabs are concerned about Iran!' And conveniently, there is no mention of Israel.

For the first time - in black and white - we have proof that Arab countries have actively encouraged the United States to attack Iran, adds our correspondent, and from what we can tell, the documents paint a picture of Iran as isolated and under threat.

'It's all those crazy Arabs wanting to kill each other, see?!'

Truth is, this business is looking more and more like MOSSAD trying to get a World War going. And they just may do it and billions will die.

Yep.

 

[axj]

US condemns Wikileaks diplomatic cables release

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11860435

Among the revelations is a report Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah urged the US to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

To me this confirms that AIPAC or Mossad are indeed the Wikisource. The point of the above revelation being: 'You see? Even the Arabs are concerned about Iran!'

I think this is indeed the main point of this particular Wikileaks episode: to show that Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain and Jordan have been secretly in favor of an attack on Iran.

It is also interesting that most of these 220 "cables" that have been already posted on the Wikileaks website deal with Iran and foreign governments' attitudes towards Iran. Very selective indeed.

 

[JonnyRadar]

It is also interesting that most of these 220 "cables" that have been already posted on the Wikileaks website deal with Iran and foreign governments' attitudes towards Iran. Very selective indeed.

Yep, once again, nothing new from Wikileaks. Unfortunately, drama and intrigue are very attractive and distracting for a lot of people. Without critical thinking, the facts remain hidden in a tent behind the circus everybody's watching.

 

[seek10]

[

To me this confirms that AIPAC or Mossad are indeed the Wikisource. The point of the above revelation being: 'You see? Even the Arabs are concerned about Iran!' And conveniently, there is no mention of Israel.

It's funny to see how white house and pentagon looks like in the hands of wikileak. virtually shivering and worried about what will come next. who has that much power except israel and Mossad ?.

 

[Joe]

[

To me this confirms that AIPAC or Mossad are indeed the Wikisource. The point of the above revelation being: 'You see? Even the Arabs are concerned about Iran!' And conveniently, there is no mention of Israel.

It's funny to see how white house and pentagon looks like in the hands of wikileak. virtually shivering and worried about what will come next. who has that much power except israel and Mossad ?.

That Wikileaks is being fed these documents by Israel seems obvious. Israel has a long-standing spy network in the US, so would have access to these documents. At the same time, we notice that these documents follow the equally long-standing Israeli tactic of leading the US by the nose by way of manipulation and subtle coercion. Hence we have the Iraq and Afghan 'war logs' that put pressure on the US in terms of releasing some mildly damaging data while at the same time mixing in a lot of 'data' that supports the Israeli world-view: mainly, that Iran is evil.

Any positive effects that the release of documents that expose the evil of the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan COULD have, are essentially negated by the propaganda and lies that are mixed in.

 

[1984]

That Wikileaks is being fed these documents by Israel seems obvious. Israel has a long-standing spy network in the US, so would have access to these documents. At the same time, we notice that these documents follow the equally long-standing Israeli tactic of leading the US by the nose by way of manipulation and subtle coercion. Hence we have the Iraq and Afghan 'war logs' that put pressure on the US in terms of releasing some mildly damaging data while at the same time mixing in a lot of 'data' that supports the Israeli world-view: mainly, that Iran is evil.

Any positive effects that the release of documents that expose the evil of the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan COULD have, are essentially negated by the propaganda and lies that are mixed in.

Yours would be a great comment on this article, Perceval. :)

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/218739-Wiki-Spin-WikiLeaks-Proves-World-Shares-Concern-Over-Nuclear-Iran

 

[Joe]

That Wikileaks is being fed these documents by Israel seems obvious. Israel has a long-standing spy network in the US, so would have access to these documents. At the same time, we notice that these documents follow the equally long-standing Israeli tactic of leading the US by the nose by way of manipulation and subtle coercion. Hence we have the Iraq and Afghan 'war logs' that put pressure on the US in terms of releasing some mildly damaging data while at the same time mixing in a lot of 'data' that supports the Israeli world-view: mainly, that Iran is evil.

Any positive effects that the release of documents that expose the evil of the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan COULD have, are essentially negated by the propaganda and lies that are mixed in.

Yours would be a great comment on this article, Perceval. :)

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/218739-Wiki-Spin-WikiLeaks-Proves-World-Shares-Concern-Over-Nuclear-Iran

Done :)

 

[PopHistorian]

Personally, I would have summed up the long articles already posted, those that suspect the whole thing is planned, in a couple of words taken from the standard CoIntelPro and Disinformation play books:
- Limited Hangout (for the info itself, which hides the real truth and implies that all kinds of lies are real, such as real source of terrorism, and puts people off looking for the real truth)
and
- Pleading Incompetence (for how the info got out -- like they did with 9/11 -- practically no chance that this wasn't deliberately put out)

I've been watching the US TV news to see how they spin it, because I think the majority don't read. Here's what I see:

1. They're focusing on the same few relatively benign items over and over (people can read much more in the papers, but viewers will believe that what's on TV is the extent of it). This is even worse filtering than giving the docs to the PTB publications Laura quoted above.
2. They're offering up two kinds of "expert" commentators -- one that acts all angry about how "dangerous" this is (Frances Townsend and her ilk), what with Rep. Pete King wanting WikiLeaks declared to be a foreign terrorist organization and all (geez, if that expansion of the definition of terrorist goes through, the whole world will be worse off), and one who laughs off the revelations saying that world leaders deserve the candid criticism the US metes out (David Frum on CNN and his ilk). Frum revealed himself when he went so far as to say the leaks prove that "it's not a Jewish conspiracy" that is directing anger and fear towards Iran *and* that it makes war with Iran *more* likely than before. See axj's comment above.
3. They're asking, annoyed, how this information got out. The silent message being that opacity and secrecy in gov't are just wonderful.

They're not overdoing attention to the story nor are they angry or blaming US officials cited in the leaks.

Folks overseas, what do you see? I'm wondering if they're positioning the US populace to shrug this off as minor, while doing something quite different elsewhere.

 

[thevenusian]

I've been watching the US TV news to see how they spin it, because I think the majority don't read.

On that note, watching Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, her role as alleged 'gatekeeper' is on full display with this story. Their standard-bearer commentator on Wikileaks is Daniel Ellsberg, and much association is made between him and Julian Assange, good whistle-blowers and champions of humanity all. The emphasis in their reporting is totally on the side of validating Wikileaks and Assange, and they will send a whole bunch of progressive-type viewers down that road. It is really too bad, because on many other issues Democracy Now does a good job, IMO. Makes you wonder what the terms of their deal with the devil really are.

 

[un chien anadolu]

278 Cables are released so far and in this first batch the most frequent referenced countries are Iran and Turkey.
I am also glad that some of these cables reveal the corruption of the ruling party in Turkey and his leader Erdogan. Sorry, I know some of you may see him as a hero because of his glint during Gaza flotilla incident but this was a successful acting in support of (mostly) domestic policy. It's a well known fact that he was a selected puppet and supporter of Bush gang and he several times blurted out that he is deputy, vice president of The Great Middle East Project aka Middle East massacre.

Having said that I've another point to make. If we look at the leaked documents so far what do we see -maybe not into the details but the rough picture perceived by common puplic- ?

- Iran is a real threat. Well this is not the suprising news that USA/Israel see Iran as a threat, but...

- also all Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, UAE and even Qatar and Bahrain (this is important: despite their remarkable Shi'a populations) have the opinion that there's no point in discussing with Iran and USA should attack immediately. However...

- Turkey is the only Muslim country in the area who doesn't support this idea and they even supply material for Iran's nuclear program.

Hmm guess who doesn't get along with Turkey lately and have real problems with their Middle East politics : Israel.

I don't know if Julian is a wittingly agent of Mossad, PTB etc. but the overall perception of the leaked documents by the public raises serious red flags for me.

 

[Keit]

Folks overseas, what do you see? I'm wondering if they're positioning the US populace to shrug this off as minor, while doing something quite different elsewhere.

Don't know what they say on TV in Israel (maybe will try to watch it, just the news part), but what ever is said in the media proves that the info is heavily manipulated to portray Israel in a good and "being misunderstood" light. Just take this article, for example, where Netanyahu apparently is pro"economic peace" that would improve quality of life for Palestinians in the West Bank, doesn't want to control their territories, and is good willing in general if only those pesky and closed minded Palestinians would finally cooperate! And Lieberman is apparently close buddies with Russia. There is also this scolding of Egypt for applying pressure on the U.S. to support a call for the supervision of Israel's nuclear facilities, some internal political stories, but nothing really ground shaking or even remotely true. Bottom line, it is

 

[Mr. Premise]

Looks like Israel Shamir drank the Assange-worship Koolaid: http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir11292010.html

Hook, line and sinker (sorry for the mixed metaphors!)

 

[JonnyRadar]

The American media is trotting out a patsy as we speak. Just posted this on FB. Perhaps something here for SOTT to post?

_http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/bradley-manning-may-have-leaked-info-out-of-anger-at-us-military-s-gay-policy

EDIT: here's another article not so focused on Manning's sexuality - _http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2925003220101130