http://www.pakalertpress.com/2010/12/26/wikiweasel-ii-the-alternative-media-crushes-wikileaks/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pakalert+%28Pak+Alert+Press%29
Posted on Pakalert on December 26, 2010, By Gordon Duff, Veterans Today
“We know what has been released. The genuinely sensitive material held by Wikileaks, that tying Israel to actions against America in Iraq, tying Israel to the drug trade in Afghanistan and tying Israel to terrorism in Pakistan, have yet to be seen. Will Assange be releasing these reports in 6 months? Why wait that long?”
The Bedouins look at each other and smile.
“We just saw two, no ten Iranians swimming the Euphrates River. It looked like they had guns, no I think it was bombs, no, a big bomb, a dirty bomb I think I heard them say. They kept saying they were meeting their friends from Pakistan, no, I think it was Al Qaeda, no, now that I think of it, it was Al Qaeda from Pakistan, maybe bin Laden himself, yeah, that’s the ticket. They were taking nuclear weapons and meeting Usama bin Laden.”
The corporal, listening intently with a touch of skepticism looks the taller of the two in the eye and asks, “Where, exactly were they carrying these bombs again?”
The two Bedouins look at each other again, a smile spreads across their faces as they turn to the young soldier, “They had the bombs in their underwear, of course, where to you think terrorists keep such things?”
Another Wikileak is born…….
——————————————-
Julian Assange has lashed out at the independent press for their attacks on the credibility of Wikileaks, particularly after revelations of his associations with, not only the New York Times and the powerful Murdoch media empire, both strong voices for Israel’s Zionist movement, but the Rothschilds family and even, strange as it may seem, billionaire George Soros.
While the mainstream media, now openly admitting their partnership with Wikileaks, has built Assange to “rock star” status, their reporting has systematically censored attacks on Wikileaks by, not only alternative media but governments as well.
Assange’s recent rages at the independent media are a clear indication of the declining status of mainstream press and television as reliable new sources. With 4 out of 5 seeking their news from the Internet and those looking for something other than sports, fashion and gossip, more likely than not moving increasingly toward the alternative press, Wikileaks, now practically a “brand name” for the New York Times and Fox/Murdoch group, is beginning to look, more and more, like a liability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TheJPboU4c&feature=player_embedded
These attacks on Assange, citing his seeming pro-Israel bias, one he now openly admits also, soon began coming in from governments, Pakistan and Turkey, major allies of the United States, among others. However, the press never reported them or any of the other accusations of bias. While busily reporting on Assange’s sex life, a version now contradicted as to nature and preferences, the media left out the real heart of the Wikileaks controversy itself, its own role in Wikileaks.
If anything, the New York Times is guilty, not so much of espionage as reported by CBS News, but for misrepresenting their role in Wikileaks.
FILTERING THE UNFILTERED, THE PROPAGANDIZING OF WIKILEAKS
When Assange admitted that materials damaging to Israel were allowed to be removed from Wikileaks by outsiders, The New York Times and unnamed others, he failed to clarify the process used for adding material to Wikileaks. This process is called “seeding.”
When Brzezinski accused Assange of “seeding” Wikileaks with “pointed material” on behalf of an “intelligence agency,” this is the process he was referring to. It isn’t just that Wikileaks protects Israel but that material damaging to Israel’s enemies is now proven to have been chosen specifically.
This won’t be said enough times. When material was added and taken away to serve the purpose of powerful outside groups, in this case, all with powerful Israeli ties, it made Wikileaks an agent of censorship, an agent of propaganda and totally discredited the Wikileaks project.
Dr. Alan Sabrosky cites the following after his analysis of Wikileak material;
“The one striking exception in all of this global tour de farce
No one knows how many groups were given censorship power by Assange or why or what materials were removed, and how embarrassing they would be to Israel. Were there materials on the attack on the Freedom Flotilla or the Goldstone Report? Were there reports on Mordecai Vanunu and Israel’s nuclear program? Did Wikileaks suppress information on how Israel and India have armed Taliban terrorists for attacks inside Pakistan or, far more serious, reports that Israeli sniper teams and other groups, targeting American troops, did so in an attempt to blame Iran and push the United States to war with that nation. Are there reports of Israeli agents planning attacks on US forces in Bahrain in 2007, attacks meant to be blamed on Shiite terrorists allied to Iran? We are told there are and that these reports were removed and withheld.
WHAT WE GOT INSTEAD…
Instead of these reports, the public got these carefully selected and unsubstantiated items:
1. 10th June 2006: Al Qaida in Iraq insurgents plan to attack a forward operating base in Karmah with chemical weapons…The insurgents plan to deploy their chemical weapon using mortars as a delivery system. (Analyst Comments: In Iraq AQI has tried several times to employ chemical weapons against coalition forces).
2. 16th August 2008: CBRN personnel has tested the rounds twice with M8 paper and J CAM. EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal), and chemical recon element assess that the chemical … tested positive for chemical agent. EOD reports 12 x full chemical rounds. 14 x damaged rounds are either leaking or empty. The cache consisted of 26 contaminated rounds and 14 empty 155mm rounds.
3. 13th October 2005: As of late September 2005, Al-Qa’ida in Iraq elements allegedly planned to attack Abu Ghurayb prison in early to mid-October using an unspecified number of mortars and car bombs…. AQIZ elements allegedly planned to use 20 “chemical munitions” brought from Syria.
4. 28th January 2006: The ten are chemical weapons specialists and came to Iraq to support the chemical weapons operations of Hizballah Islam I. (Field comment — The chemical operations of Hizballah Islam I were previously reported as Al Qa’ida Iraq operations, the ten unidentified men are chemical weapons specialists from Syria)…The ten unidentified men were taken to Is’Hagey Iraq, where the unidentified chemicals weapons … are stored. The chemical weapons were brought from Syria to Iraq on 21 January 2006.
5. 29th December 2006: As of 27 December 2006, three unidentified Bedouins who were alleged Iraq AQI Operatives planned to transport chemical munitions from Al Judayda, Saudi Arabia, to Nugra Al Salman District, a border area in Al Muthanna Province, Iraq …Subsequently, Iraq AQI operatives planned use the munitions to attack hospitals, outdoor markets, and US military forces in Al Basrah, Al Amarah and An Nasiriyah on or after 15 January 2007.
6. 5th March 2007: AQI insurgency group is planning a rocket attack on several targets in the Baghdad International Zone and a US base in Al Rashdiyah by using Katusha rockets filled with unknown chemicals… these rockets were described as being three meters long and are modified in order to carry the extra weight. (Field Comment – the source was unable to provide the type of chemical and stated that these rockets probably originated from Iran).
7. 20th September 2007: As of late September 2007, Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) militants in Mosul, Iraq were planning an imminent attack on Tall ‘Afar using rockets with Chlorine gas or another chemical compound … The rockets had a range of more than 20 Kilometers, and an impact radius of 50 to 100 square meters. (Comment: the Arabic word “Sarukh” was used to describe the rockets).
Upon closer examination, each of these reports was shown to be worthless, discarded or downgraded by the US government as “chickenfeed.” The proposed attacks all never happened, the weapons spoken of were never found or used, in fact, the Iraq War Logs were a litany of failure. However, when the press, now shown to have selected the “leaks” in the first place, wrote about their own work, what was “chickenfeed” was spun into powerful accusations, all false, fanciful and reprehensible.
We know what has been released. The genuinely sensitive material held by Wikileaks, that tying Israel to actions against America in Iraq, tying Israel to the drug trade in Afghanistan and tying Israel to terrorism in Pakistan, have yet to be seen. Will Assange be releasing these reports in 6 months? Why wait that long?
PRO-WAR, ANTI-WAR, WILL THE REAL WIKILEAKS PLEASE STAND UP
Assange is pro-war, Assange is a strong “neocon” supporter, Assange has supported Bush administration policies in every way from the mishandling of the 9/11 investigation to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Assange was totally pro-American until the Obama administration began pushing for an end to the forced removal of Palestinians by Israel.
Lila Rajiva, writing for Veterans Today, cited Stewart Bramhill:
So what is the corporate media trying to conceal by beating Assange’s sex life to death?
Most of the information in the recent cables release is already widely available on the Internet.
At the same time I find it surprising to find absolutely nothing about the “strategic” reasons the US is at war in Pakistan and Afghanistan.Nothing about the Pentagon agenda to foster the secession of oil and mineral rich Balochistan from Pakistan as a US client state – just like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and other former Soviet republics. Nothing about CIA support for the Baloch separatist movement. Nothing about the CIA training young Baloch separatists in bomb making and other terrorist activities to disrupt operations at the Chinese-built Gwadar Port (intended to transport Iranian oil and natural gas via Pakistan to China).
The latest Wikileak has been out a for a month, actually much longer if you are the New York Times or the government of Israel. They had it all from day one. With the US government threatening Julian Assange with prosecution for holding and releasing illegally obtained classified material, why aren’t they going after the real Wikileaks, the New York Times? It only took Zbigniew Brzezinski, Washington’s “establishment” foreign policy expert, a “New York minute” to spot Wikileaks as an intelligence operation, when he informed PBS interviewer Judy Woodruff of this on December 2.
This story wasn’t new. The worst part is that the story was well documented from the first, long ago, but suppressed in the press, now long proven totally complicit, not in choosing what Wikileaks stories to print, but in choosing what Wikileaks intelligence was released to the public. This is what it all comes down to.
WIKILEAKS IS A “PRESS RELEASE,” AND HARDLY A “LEAK” AT ALL
Julian Assange, for some unknown reason, placed full authority for what the public could and couldn’t be trusted with in the hands of the New York Times. Wasn’t Wikileaks set up to attack the press in the first place? Wasn’t it Wikileaks that was telling us, from day one, that the governments were controlling the press, censoring the news and supporting wars?
The whole purpose of Wikileaks was to eliminate and bypass the cabal of corrupt government and controlled press, to empower citizens with real information that was withheld. Instead, Wikileaks became just another government controlled newspaper, and Julian Assange got his daily press conferences, his staged photo shoots and his endless fame, all while covering his complicity in censorship and his relationships with the world’s most powerful and often reviled forces, all advocates of war.
With all the hoopla about opposing war, the majority of Wikileaks documents, certainly the most “pointed” and “seeded” of them, as Brzezinski tells us, are all in support of the wars Julian Assange said he opposed. Other than minor reports outlining the idiocy of the people who wrote the reports, cables or whatever we want to call them, other than proving American diplomats and intelligence officers are typically dupes and clowns, something a decade of war and lies has proven to the world long ago, what, exactly, has Wikileaks done?
Dr. Alan Sabrosky sums it up far better than I could ever do;
But nothing like that is there, or at least has yet surfaced, which makes me increasingly inclined to see this as just another game of rhetorical smoke and mirrors, with a lot of real cables and real victims (like the poor US soldier who presumably gave Assange at least some of the cables), but with many or most of the Middle East cables “cooked” if not fabricated outright.
So these, at least, are probably the handiwork of Israeli-Americans or just Israelis putting their own spin on things, included in a mass of otherwise legitimate cables as camouflage and for validation. An Australian news website concluded that “[the] WikiLeaks cables [are] the 9/11 of world diplomacy.” Too, too true – same source, different vehicle and venue, all helping pave the road to yet another needless war in Israel’s service, this time against Iran. The gods weep — but not, presumably, Yahweh.”
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Vatic Clerk Tips: After 7 days, all comments to an article go into the moderation queue for approval which happens at least once a day. Please be patient.
Be respectful in your comments, keeping in mind that these discussions will become the Zeitgeist of our time that future database archeologists will discover. Make your comments worthy and on the founding father's level in their respectfulness, reasoning, and sound argumentation. Prove we weren't all idiots in our day and age. Comments that advocate sedition or violence are not encouraged. Racist, ad hominem, and troll-baiting comments might never see the light of day.