Julian Assange Discussion

[Guardian]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-pope-turkey-eu-muslim

The US embassy cables
WikiLeaks cables: Pope wanted Muslim Turkey kept out of EU

Vatican diplomats also lobbied against Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and wanted 'Christian roots' enshrined in EU constitution


* Heather Brooke and Andrew Brown
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 December 2010 21.30 GMT
* Article history

Pope Benedict XVI received by Turkish prime minister in Ankara in 2006 A WikiLeaks cable reports that Pope Benedict XVI, seen here being received by Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara in 2006, 'might prefer to see Turkey develop a special relationship short of EU membership'. Photograph: Dylan Martinez/AFP/Getty Images

The pope is responsible for the Vatican's growing hostility towards Turkey joining the EU, previously secret cables sent from the US embassy to the Holy See in Rome claim.

In 2004 Cardinal Ratzinger, the future pope, spoke out against letting a Muslim state join, although at the time the Vatican was formally neutral on the question.

The Vatican's acting foreign minister, Monsignor Pietro Parolin, responded by telling US diplomats that Ratzinger's comments were his own rather than the official Vatican position.

The cable released by WikiLeaks shows that Ratzinger was the leading voice behind the Holy See's unsuccessful drive to secure a reference to Europe's "Christian roots" in the EU constitution. The US diplomat noted that Ratzinger "clearly understands that allowing a Muslim country into the EU would further weaken his case for Europe's Christian foundations".

But by 2006 Parolin was working for Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, and his tone had distinctly chilled. "Neither the pope nor the Vatican have endorsed Turkey's EU membership per se," he told the American charge d'affaires, "rather, the Holy See has been consistently open to accession, emphasising only that Turkey needs to fulfil the EU's Copenhagen criteria to take its place in Europe."

But he did not expect the demands on religious freedom to be fulfilled: "One great fear is that Turkey could enter the EU without having made the necessary advances in religious freedom. [Parolin] insisted that EU members – and the US – continue to press the [Turkish government] on these issues … He said that short of 'open persecution', it couldn't get much worse for the Christian community in Turkey."

The cables reveal the American government lobbying within Rome and Ankara for Turkish EU membership. "We hope a senior department official can visit the Holy See and encourage them to do more to push a positive message on Turkey and integration," concluded the 2006 cable.

But by 2009, the American ambassador was briefing in advance of President Barack Obama's visit, that "the Holy See's position now is that as a non-EU member the Vatican has no role in promoting or vetoing Turkey's membership. The Vatican might prefer to see Turkey develop a special relationship short of membership with the EU."

Roman Catholicism is the only religion in the world with the status of a sovereign state, allowing the pope's most senior clerics to sit at the top table with world leaders. The cables reveal the Vatican routinely wielding influence through diplomatic channels while sometimes denying it is doing so. The Vatican has diplomatic relations with 177 countries and has used its diplomatic status to lobby the US, United Nations and European Union in a concerted bid to impose its moral agenda through national and international parliaments.

The US charge d'affaires D Brent Hardt told Parolin, his diplomatic counterpart in Rome, of "the Holy See's potential to influence Catholic countries to support a ban on human cloning" to which Parolin emphasised his agreement with the US position and promised to support fully UN efforts for such a ban.

On other global issues such as climate change, the Vatican sought to use its moral authority as leverage, while refusing itself to sign formal treaties, such as the Copenhagen accord, that require reporting commitments.

At a meeting in January this year Dr Paolo Conversi, the pope's representative on climate change at the Vatican's secretariat of state, told an American diplomat that the Vatican would "encourage other countries discreetly to associate themselves with the accord as opportunities arise".

The Americans noted that Conversi's offer to support the US, even if discreetly, was significant because the Vatican was often reluctant to appear to compromise its independence and moral authority by associating itself with particular lobbying efforts.

"Even more important than the Vatican's lobbying assistance, however, is the influence the pope's guidance can have on public opinion in countries with large Catholic majorities and beyond."

The cables also reveal that the Vatican planned to use Poland as a trojan horse to spread Catholic family values through the structures of the European Union in Brussels.

The then US ambassador to the Holy See, Francis Rooney, briefed Washington in 2006, shortly after the election of Pope Benedict XVI, that "the Holy See hopes that Poland will hold the line at the EU on 'life and family' issues that arise" and would serve as a counterweight to western European secularism once the country had integrated into the EU.

The cable notes that Pope Benedict is preoccupied with Europe's increasing psychological distance from its Christian roots.

"He has continued to focus on Poland's potential in combating this trend. This was one of the themes of the visit of several groups of Polish bishops to the Vatican at the end of last year [2005]. 'It's a topic that always comes up,' explained Monsignor Michael Banach, the Holy See minister of foreign affairs country director for Poland. He told us that the two sides recognised that the Polish bishops needed to exert leadership in the face of western European secularism."

Across the Atlantic, the Vatican has told the Americans it wants to undermine the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, in Latin America because of worries about the deterioration of Catholic power there. It fears Chávez is seriously damaging relations between the Catholic church and the state by identifying the church hierarchy as part of the privileged class.

Monsignor Angelo Accattino, in charge of Caribbean and Andean matters for the Vatican, said Obama should reach out to Cuba "in order to reduce the influence of Chávez and break up his cabal in Latin America".In December last year, America's adviser for western Europe at the UN, Robert Smolik, said the Vatican observer was "as always active and influential behind the scenes" and "lobbied actively and influentially in the corridors and in informal consultations, particularly on social issues".

In 2001 another American diplomat to the Vatican stated: "The Holy See will continue to seek to play a role in the Middle East peace process while denying this intention." (1792)

 

[Guardian]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-vatican-child-sex-abuse-investigation


WikiLeaks cables: Vatican refused to engage with child sex abuse inquiry

Leaked cable lays bare how Irish government was forced to grant Vatican officials immunity from testifying to Murphy commission

* Heather Brooke
* The Guardian, Saturday 11 December 2010
* Article history

Cardinal Seán Brady talks to reporters after meeting Pope Benedict XVI A WikiLeaks cable details the behind-the-scenes diplomacy before Cardinal Seán Brady met Pope Benedict XVI in Rome, after which the pope said he shared the 'outrage, betrayal and shame' of Irish Catholics. Photograph: Tony Gentile/Reuters

The Vatican refused to allow its officials to testify before an Irish commission investigating the clerical abuse of children and was angered when they were summoned from Rome, US embassy cables released by WikiLeaks reveal.

Requests for information from the 2009 Murphy commission into sexual and physical abuse by clergy "offended many in the Vatican" who felt that the Irish government had "failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the investigations", a cable says.

Despite the lack of co-operation from the Vatican, the commission was able to substantiate many of the claims and concluded that some bishops had tried to cover up abuse, putting the interests of the Catholic church ahead of those of the victims. Its report identified 320 people who complained of child sexual abuse between 1975 and 2004 in the Dublin archdiocese.

A cable entitled "Sex abuse scandal strains Irish-Vatican relations, shakes up Irish church, and poses challenges for the Holy See" claimed that Vatican officials also believed Irish opposition politicians were "making political hay" from the situation by publicly urging the government to demand a reply from the Vatican.

Ultimately, the Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (equivalent to a prime minister), wrote to the Irish embassy, ordering that any requests related to the investigation must come through diplomatic channels.

In the cable Noel Fahey, the Irish ambassador to the Holy See, told the US diplomat Julieta Valls Noyes that the Irish clergy sex abuse scandal was the most difficult crisis he had ever managed.

The Irish government wanted "to be seen as co-operating with the investigation" because its own education department was implicated, but politicians were reluctant to press Vatican officials to answer the investigators' queries.

According to Fahey's deputy, Helena Keleher, the government acceded to Vatican pressure and granted them immunity from testifying. Officials understood that "foreign ambassadors are not required or expected to appear before national commissions", but Keleher's opinion was that by ignoring the commission's requests the clergy had made the situation worse.

The cable reveals the behind-the-scenes diplomacy in which politicians in the Irish government attempted to persuade an imperious Vatican to engage with the investigation.

The foreign minister, Michael Martin, "was forced to call in the papal nuncio (representative)" to discuss the situation. The ambassador reported that resentment towards the church in Rome remained very high in Ireland, largely because of the institutionalised cover-up of abuse by the Catholic church hierarchy.

Finally the Vatican changed tactics and on 11 December 2009 the ambassador stated that the pope had held a meeting with senior Irish clerics. The Irish cardinal Seán Brady and the archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, went to Rome and met the pontiff, who was flanked by Bertone and four other cardinals.

At the end of the meeting, the Vatican issued a statement saying that the pope shared the "outrage, betrayal, and shame" of Irish Catholics, that he was praying for the victims, and that the church would take steps to prevent recurrences.

On 21 March this year, Benedict issued a letter savaging the Irish bishops for their earlier handling of the crisis: "Grave errors of judgment were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness."

He also apologised to the victims: "You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated. It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel."

In a section entitled "Some Lessons Learned, but Crisis Will Play Out for Years", the ambassador related that his contacts at the Vatican and in Ireland expected the crisis in the Irish Catholic church to be protracted over several years, as the Murphy commission dealt only with allegations from the Dublin archdiocese.

They believed further investigations into other archdioceses would lead, "officials in both states lament, to additional painful revelations".

 

[Guardian]

I honestly can't understand why everyone doesn't smell a rat here.

I honestly can't understand why everyone doesn't see the advantages to having the rats at each others throats.

 

[Ady_H101]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3992959,00.html


this brings me back to reality time and time agan. i know julian is going through a hard time right now, even as i type this, and i know the stance that this site takes on the issue and to a certain extent i agree (the SOTT article does put it into context very well ) but this link cannot be under estimated........ its a difficult time to be on the BBM at this time........ i dont contribute to this site as much as i should i spend most of my time reading the articles and reading replys on this forum but i feel i need to point this link out....... its a very VERY hard subject to digest....... im still neither in one camp or the other as always. baby and bath water are very VERY hard to tell apart at this stage.

 

[henry]

According to this link, Paypal has started closing accounts where people have donated to Wikileaks...

_http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/ejzfp/paypal_shut_my_account_today_because_my_business/

 

[Guardian]

According to this link, Paypal has started closing accounts where people have donated to Wikileaks...

_http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/ejzfp/paypal_shut_my_account_today_because_my_business/

That's interesting. If it's not an isolated incidence, we should see other similar posts, tweets, etc. soon.

 

[Ady_H101]

is this a war started on the PTB terms? if so then lets not lose our heads!!!

 

[daveOS]

Could it be possible that Assange is trying to expose or shakeup Israel indirectly, i.e., he made a promise to them but deep down has always wanted to give Israel a boot, and what better way then to expose a major US bank because in reality, there is no real "US" bank is there?

Hmm I was thinking about it. Just a speculation but imagine this scenario.
Assange is talking to pro-israel types (or maybe Israel itself ) to get funds and support for his operation Wikileaks.
Israel is assured that nothing that hits them directly will be released, hence 9/11 denial.
Now thinking strategically , Assange used Israels support to expose some truths but that is not important.
Important is , like Laura already noticed , that stuff like wikileaks has to be protected because it is whistleblower site and that the very idea of exposing psychopaths has to be protected.
So it is important to wake up people so they, can and will investigate stuff on their own. Cost of this wake up (which also adds confusion) is that Assange had to deny 9/11 plot.
Also psychopaths did not realize in their mad blindness that they could be hit indirectly and that they are supporting a growing sword which in fact at the end of the day may hit them and their lies too.
Like I said this is pure speculation but it would be cool to see this check-mate chess move by Assange.
He nearly did what he planned. Website is pretty much invurnelable. He has enormous support in people around the globe.
I only hope that this is not some sort of mad set up :/

Well said, and I want to believe that's the case, but at the moment with Julian threatening doomsday worms and his followers attacking site-hosts for dropping WL, their actions reflect rogue rebellion more than responsible stewardship of disclosure we know they could provide. If Assange was holding the 9/11 card in order to bluff Israel into trusting him, it would appear they read his poker-face, and so now would be a good time for him to invoke WTC7 and the host of scientically verifiable inconsistencies with 9/11 and call for an open investigation, but instead we get a barrage of cyber-terror threats from him and his handlers sending the message, 'if I go down you're all going down with me'. And now we get this Paypal crack-down on disclosure seekers in retribution to all common people for the actions of Julian and co. More stunts setting up for something?

Note: With Prison Planet jumping on the 'Assange is a victim' bandwagon, that storyline appears to be an active disinfo theme (for all we've seen from AJ).
“CIA Honeytrap” Ardin Deleted Twitter Posts Praising Assange
_http://www.prisonplanet.com/cia-“honeytrap”-ardin-deleted-twitter-posts-praising-assange.html

 

[Guardian]

Well said, and I want to believe that's the case, but at the moment with Julian threatening doomsday worms

What? A "doomsday worm?" Ok that's a new one, not exactly the Lindbergh baby....but getting closer. :P

and his followers attacking site-hosts for dropping WL,

Several major corporations STOLE a great deal of money from Wikileaks, donations from thousands of citizens...and thousands of citizens decided to take part in various Cyber Protests against those corporations...Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, etc.

their actions reflect rogue rebellion

Yup, that's the part I like...rogue rebellion without violance. How kewl is that!

At physical protests, people block the entrances to abusive corporations and governments with their bodies (or at least try to) Protesters intentionally try to financially damage the offending corp. by interfering with their operations ...mainly because costing the psychopaths money is one of the few things that will make them change their policies.

Cyber Protests do the exact same thing..except no one gets physically hurt as they so often do at meatspace protests.

Blocking traffic is blocking traffic, Anon has just found a way to do it without getting run over by a police horse.
We live in a digital age,and Cyber Civil Disobedience is here to stay. Anon just gave Eprotesting a whole new meaning...and I have the feeling they're just getting started.

I really admire the PEACEFUL protest methods these kids have come up with...but then I was willing to chain myself to a bulldozer dressed in a duck suit...soooooooo.

more than responsible stewardship of disclosure we know they could provide.

Wikileaks IS NOT Anonymous ...two different organizations (and generations) entirely.

Note: With Prison Planet jumping on the 'Assange is a victim' bandwagon, that storyline appears to be an active disinfo theme (for all we've seen from AJ).

ROFLMBO -Prison Planet says Julian is a "victim" and Godlike Productions says Wikileaks is a "set-up"
_http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1282132/pg1

What's hilarious is that they're both wrong.

 

[Laura]

I think we don't have enough hard data to flame Assange though a whole lot of stuff makes the situation look very suspect. Assange MAY have a strategy that he is playing and CANNOT reveal it or it will fail. And part of that strategy may be playing a certain role. Yes, of course, he's gotten a lot of flak for his sexcapades but there is probably more to that than meets the eye also.

I'm willing at this point to just collect the material and observe and give support to the principle of free speech and the necessity for leaks AND the necessity for "rogue resistance" by those who are willing and able to do that sort of thing.

It's true that having all the big players at each others' throat is interesting though certainly a case could be made that even this is planned and deliberate at some level for the purposes of making people willing to accept a single, one-world fascist government just to bring the endless fighting to an end. We do know that this is, ultimately, the goal of Zionism - with them at the helm, of course.

I do think that whatever Assange's strategy was/is, it's not a very good one because precipitating a war of any kind only plays into the hands of the PTB - and here I mean the hidden PTB, not the "on stage governments" that are merely puppets of this hidden power. A much better strategy would be for everyone to devote themselves to education about psychopathology and enabling people to be in a condition to SEE the pathology.

Right now, the polls are saying that the majority of Americans are willing to see Assange hang and give up free speech altogether. In short, they weren't ready for this action. They really needed to suffer more and learn more about pathology before this was launched, so if it is a strategy, it was poorly thought out in terms of real human mass psychology.

That, of course, does not alter the fact that we should consider that Assange is genuinely trying to do something positive and that a lot of what is said about him is just defamation.

 

[Stranger]

Uh, we can see the first Vendetta-masks on the street (Spain)

Anonymous is behind that, supporting wikileaks not longer only on the web but on the streets, too.

I still hope to see streets full of these mask-wearing guys one day, maybe these things start rolling... But hopefully the people won't associate only Wikileaks with Vendetta-masks. There are more important problems on this planet we have to rise our voice and stand up for.

 

[Joe]

It's true that having all the big players at each others' throat is interesting though certainly a case could be made that even this is planned and deliberate at some level for the purposes of making people willing to accept a single, one-world fascist government just to bring the endless fighting to an end. We do know that this is, ultimately, the goal of Zionism - with them at the helm, of course.

Unless someone can point it out to me, I don't see the 'rats' at each others' throats. Almost everything in the cables has been publicly exposed already. Why would the 'rats' be at each others' throats over the release of data (not officially by US embassies) that US embasssies collected? Collecting data is what all embassies do. I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to some tangible benefit to the leaks that outweighs the lies and disinformation they contain and the potential damage the leaking may do to internet freedom of speech.

 

[thevenusian]

There hasn't been a single thing in any of these releases which has served as a genuine rallying point for people to become passionate about in a way that truly motivates resistance to the PTB on a wide scale, or is sufficiently shocking to cause a change in thinking and attitude. Like Laura said, quite the opposite in the US, where 70% want to prosecute Assange and unwittingly hand over their right to free speech. Whether he is complicit, innocent or just a dupe, Assange is undeniably a mass-media figure and can as such be used by those directing media events to influence people.

It is worth remembering that billions of dollars are spent marketing 'events' and ideas, influencing public opinion via TV and the MSM- and the military/ intelligence/ security state is perhaps the biggest spender of all. They control mass media. They own it. This current drama as a media event makes it seem like maybe the game-theory boys got a new super-computer to play with. There are such big obvious red flags all over the place, but there is a seed of doubt for each one. Many a good critical thinker has been tied into knots. And there is also a very wide range of possible and disturbing target effects which seem possible through this event.

It's also worth remembering what we just went through with Obama. Millions of people around the world were fooled and distracted by Obama the media figure and Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Or the thousands of good-hearted activists still spinning around in circles trying to prevent global warming because they believed Al Gore, who won an Oscar. This rat has a similar smell, at least to me.

 

[Laura]

It's also worth remembering what we just went through with Obama. Millions of people around the world were fooled and distracted by Obama the media figure and Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Or the thousands of good-hearted activists still spinning around in circles trying to prevent global warming because they believed Al Gore, who won an Oscar. This rat has a similar smell, at least to me.

Despite the fact that I consider Free Speech and leaking - in principle - worth defending, I have to agree with you about the smell of the rat.

 

[Neil]

It's true that having all the big players at each others' throat is interesting though certainly a case could be made that even this is planned and deliberate at some level for the purposes of making people willing to accept a single, one-world fascist government just to bring the endless fighting to an end. We do know that this is, ultimately, the goal of Zionism - with them at the helm, of course.

This is a rather speculative post, but based on my survey of the Assange situation, I think this statement describes what is going on pretty well. I don't see anything that would lead me to conclude that Assange is on CIA payroll, but I do think he is being used as a tool for various maverick elements.

I think that one has to sit back and take a much broader view of the reality to see where Assange fits in. My line of reasoning goes something like this. With the leading edge of the Ice Age phenomenon making its appearance, various super-secret government spooks, as well as a few vigilantes who are privy to certain extraordinary bits of classified information, view this as time to get their endgame going so they can influence the direction society will go after the present one collapses. All parties involved, Zionists, banksters, Neo-nazis, truthseekers, etc., want the society to collapse in a way that maximizes the potential that the new one will be built according to their principles.

If XYZ faction can get the general public to subscribe to their version of the truth, then it increases the likelihood that people will coalesce around their ideology after the present consensus reality crumbles and will ensure their control of the future. It is really a war of thoughts and information. So a way must be found to make these preparations, outside of the MSM establishment, which is inaccessible because it is controlled by the Old Paradigm.

Along comes Julian Assange, who knows something is wrong with the reality and wants to get to the truth of what is going on. A few documents are leaked as a sort of pilot program by various groups, the thing kind of takes off, and these parties become convinced that Assange is a medium through which the battle can be fought.

Assange, believing in the authenticity of all types of classified communiques, collects all of these documents indiscriminately and then posts them as the "truth" he has found. That is why there are contradictions, lies, useless, as well as the occasional juicy bit, especially for those outside of the conspiracy community, contained within the wikileaks aggregate.

There are probably 10 different agendas, maybe a couple of positive ones, being served by the wikileaks releases which are sometimes collinear and other times diametrically opposed. This is basically what the Cassiopaeans were talking about in 2001 when they said:

Q: (L) Do you mean greater control and loss of freedoms? Is this stricture going to be physical, or a stricture on our freedoms, or a combination of both?

A: Both.

Q: (L) Is there going to be a witch hunt in this country for people who the government wishes to identify as being potential terrorists, or anti-American, like the McCarthy era?

A: First there will be controls by laws. Then more force.

Q: (L) Is all of this going to culminate in some plan that is being activated at the present time? Is this all directed to a specific outcome by the powers that be, so to speak?

A: Mostly; but unexpected twists and turns from opposing forces.

So we've reached the time when the truth is being disclosed to the general public, but in ambiguous and circuitous ways. Assange probably has his own prejudices which skew the objective content of the data he receives even more. The whole affair reminds me a bit of Clif High, where ego, and a lack of discernment diminish the value of one's research. The implications of Assange's work seems much more prescient than Clif's, however.

It will be interesting to see if this moves into the UFO arena, as I will be very interested in what Assange has to say. I can just picture wikileaks about the Greys giving out technology and disabling nuclear weapons in order to try and help humanity. If something like that comes out, we'll know Assange is playing perfectly into the hands of 4D STS, who are much better at these kinds of games than their 3D lackeys. Hopefully he isn't playing into this agenda:

Q: (L) "He exerts all the power and right of control as the former beast in his presence and causes the earth and those who dwell upon it to exalt and deify the beast whose deadly wound was healed and worship him..." Well, it seems to say that there is a second beast that is different from the first beast but you are saying that it is just another face of the beast...

A: Yes. Look at it this way, aliens one face; God another; government another et cetera.

Q: (L) Did you mean to say that God was another face of the beast?

A: As represented by religion.

Q: (L) "He performs great signs, startling miracles, even making fire fall from the sky to the earth in men's sight.." What does that mean?

A: Aliens perform "miracles".

Q: (L) And what is the "image" of the Beast?

A: Aliens.

Q: (L) What does it mean to have been wounded by the sword and still live?

A: Perceived as scary then Godlike.

Q: (L) "And he was permitted to impart the breath of life into the Beast's image so that the statue of the beast could actually talk and to cause all to be put to death that would not bow down and worship the image of the beast." What does this mean?

A: Total control once deception is complete.