Archive | December 18th, 2010

NOVANEWS**NOVANEWS

Pic Of The Day

CIA accused of role in Iran suicide bombing

Majlis wants intl. action against terrorists

Beirut takes Israel spying issue to UNSC

‘Iran bombing result of enemy envy’

Perle: Israel Will Act on Iran

Bloggers claim WikiLeaks struck deal with Israel over diplomatic cables leaks

 

Israel Never Really Wanted PeaceEconomic Espionage Haunts AIPACU.K. Navy Medic: WikiLeaks Turned Me Against WarParcel explodes outside Iran embassyU.S. military chief Mike Mullens: We are ‘very ready’ to counter IranNasrallah: We’re not scared of IsraelUS Kills At Least 51 People In PakistanZionist Lobby’s New Orders For ObamaUS House passes anti-Palestine bill

nomorewarsforisrael@gmail.com
http://theuglytruth.podbean.com
http://www.poweroftruthradio.com

Please check out the brand new book detailing Israel’s deliberate attack on the USS LIBERTY here

Posted in UKComments Off on NOVANEWS**NOVANEWS

IS SANTA IN BETHLEHEM TODAY?

NOVANEWS

 

To call in question the society you “live” in, you must first
be capable of calling yourself in question
 

 

We have come to the time of year when many childhood memories of Santa Claus are evoked and Christians are reminded of the birth of a Son. Some will celebrate the re-birth of a Sun as the low point of the winter solstice is passed and the days at last grow longer. Others will give presents just because it’s so good to give, and as they decorate trees and festoon their rooms with boughs of holly and the like, the pagan origins of this festival will be forgotten. Forgotten too will be the people in present day Bethlehem in their struggle for justice and security.

In 1948, many refugees from areas captured by Israeli forces fled to the Bethlehem area of what is now known as the West Bank, primarily settling in what were to become official refugee camps. This influx of refugees significantly transformed Bethlehem’s Christian majority into a Muslim one.

The population of Bethlehem today is composed of Muslim and Christian Palestinians. Muslims and Christians have been living together peacefully for generations and they share one fundamental violation of human rights. Both Muslim and Christian Palestinians have no right to move freely in and out of their own town.

Today Bethlehem is surrounded by an 8 metre high separation wall, dwarfing the Berlin Wall which stood at a mere 3.65 metres. Built by the Israeli occupation forces it has been condemned by the International Court of Justice  who found that “the construction of the wall, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law”. In other words the wall is illegal, yet it exists, and grows.

No-one can enter Bethlehem without going through one of the 69 military checkpoints and showing their ID’s and necessary permits. Border guards tend to make up the rules as they go along and checkpoints can be closed without warning. If Jesus had been born in Bethlehem today the 3 wise men would have had to queue like cattle for several hours to get through a checkpoint, had their hands scanned, been searched, and quite possibly turned away as the gold, frankincense and myrrh they carried would be highly questionable.

Should the labouring mother of a present day Jesus require assistance in her childbirth, she would find that obtaining medical treatment is particularly problematic for pregnant Palestinian women about to give birth as the delivery date is largely unpredictable. Often Palestinians are only allowed to travel on foot – not by car – and they have to use old and unmaintained roads. The checkpoints are only open by day, so a night time problem has to wait.

The permits given are only valid for one or two days, therefore the women must constantly renew their permits, and as a consequence, in some instances, mothers have entered labor and given birth at checkpoints because they did not have up-to-date permits. Between the years 2000 and 2006, more than 68 Palestinian women gave birth at Israeli checkpoints. Of these, 35 women miscarried, and five died in childbirth.

In the Bethlehem area alone there are 19 illegal settlements taking valuable land from local Palestinian families and choking communities. The wall isolates 25% of Palestinian agricultural land and the farmers have to obtain permits on a daily basis and pass through checkpoints to access their own fields. A modern shepherd watching the stars as portent to a famous birth would have either had his land confiscated, or might possibly have to wait until morning to obtain a permit to cross into Bethlehem.

87% of Bethlehem’s land has been taken by Israeli occupation forces which forces Palestinians to live in cramped conditions. In some places the wall is built so close to buildings that the windows are blocked and daylight cannot enter the rooms. The wall has cut people off from their shops and their precious land and olive trees; busy roads have become dead ends. Bethlehem was once a thriving, bustling town, now one in five people are unemployed. If Jesus was born in Bethlehem today the innkeeper would be struggling to keep his business going. There would be plenty of room at the inn.

People of good conscience can help restore justice to Bethlehem in many ways.

1.       The Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) campaign is a call from Palestinians to consumers to stop buying goods made in the Occupied Territories. Often clothing and food products are labeled ‘made in Israel’ when they are not. www.bigcampaign.org lists some organizations you should avoid whilst out shopping.

2.       Buy real Palestinian products here at www.palestineonlinestore.com and help enable the fragile infrastructure and jobs

3.       Talk about it. Palestine is the news. Look beyond your usual news providers and interrogate the internet for differing points of view. It is only by constantly re-evaluating what you know that justice can be won.

 

Oh little town of Bethlehem, Imprisoned now you lie.

Above thy deep and silent grief, Surveillance drones now fly.

Full words can be found at  http://www.leedspsc.org.uk/?p=546

COEXIST is an ever growing community of people and organisations who believe that true and lasting Peace can only be sustained when economic, social and environmental justice have been achieved. 

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on IS SANTA IN BETHLEHEM TODAY?

A.LOEWENSTEIN ONLINE NEWSLETTER

NOVANEWS 


 Freedom isn’t just a slogan on a coffee cup

Posted: 16 Dec 2010 05:30 PM PST

Following the appearance in the New York Times of an ad sponsored by Australian activist group Get Up!, Ralph Nader speaks in support of Wikileaks and the importance of transparency in democracy. Bravo.

 

Dalai Lama too keen to avoid agitation with China?Posted: 16 Dec 2010 04:47 PM PST

Are these the kinds of comments that only an exiled leader would make? Perhaps and it’ll be certainly harden the views of many Tibetans that the Dalai Lama’s political skills have been less than stellar. Decades of talking and where has it got his people?

The Dalai Lama told US diplomats last year that the international community should focus on climate change rather than politics in Tibet because environmental problems were more urgent, secret American cables reveal.

The exiled Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader told Timothy Roemer, the US ambassador to India, that the “political agenda should be sidelined for five to 10 years and the international community should shift its focus to climate change on the Tibetan plateau” during a meeting in Delhi last August.

“Melting glaciers, deforestation and increasingly polluted water from mining projects were problems that ‘cannot wait’, but the Tibetans could wait five to 10 years for a political solution,” he was reported as saying.

Though the Dalai Lama has frequently raised environmental issues, he has never publicly suggested that political questions take second place, nor spoken of any timescale with such precision.

Roemer speculated, in his cable to Washington reporting the meeting, that “the Dalai Lama’s message may signal a broader shift in strategy to reframe the Tibet issue as an environmental concern”.

In their meeting, the ambassador reported, the Dalai Lama criticised China‘s energy policy, saying dam construction in Tibet had displaced thousands of people and left temples and monasteries underwater.

He recommended that the Chinese authorities compensate Tibetans for disrupting their nomadic lifestyle with vocational training, such as weaving, and said there were “three poles” in danger of melting – the north pole, the south pole, and “the glaciers at the pole of Tibet”.

The cables also reveal the desperate appeals made by the Dalai Lama for intervention by the US during unrest in Tibet during spring 2008.

As a heavy crackdown followed demonstrations and rioting, he pleaded with US officials to take action that would “make an impact” in Beijing.

At the end of one 30-minute meeting, a cable reports that the Dalai Lama embraced the embassy’s officials and “made a final plea”.

“Tibet is a dying nation. We need America’s help,” he was reported as saying.

Other cables reveal US fears that the influence of the 75-year-old Dalai Lama over the Tibetan community in exile might be waning or that a succession to his leadership could pose problems.

In June 2008, officials reported that their visit to six Tibetan refugee settlements across north and north-eastern India “underscores concerns that frustrated and dissatisfied Tibetan youth … could pose serious problems”.

“A widening generational divide finds Tibetan leaders unable to resolve growing dissatisfaction among younger Tibetans,” the officials said.

 

American figure defends WikileaksPosted: 16 Dec 2010 04:33 PM PST

A major US politician not calling for a drone strike against Julian Assange? How very quaint (and welcome):

The chairman of the House judiciary committee defended Wikileaks on Thursday, arguing that the controversial actions of the anti-secrecy outlet are protected under free speech.

Speaking at a hearing to explore whether Wikileaks violated the Espionage Act — which the Obama administration claims its editor-in-chief violated — Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) said that “America was founded on the belief that speech is sacrosanct” and dismissed calls for censorship of media outlets publishing leaked documents.

“As an initial matter, there is no doubt that WikiLeaks is very unpopular right now. Many feel that the WikiLeaks publication was offensive,” Conyers said, according to prepared remarks. “But being unpopular is not a crime, and publishing offensive information is not either. And the repeated calls from politicians, journalists, and other so-called experts crying out for criminal prosecutions or other extreme measures make me very uncomfortable.”

 

New York Times no chance of getting award for braveryPosted: 16 Dec 2010 04:29 PM PST

So NYTimes editor throws Assange under a bus? Of course, the Times is a Serious paper that helped the US invade Iraq so everybody should take that publication very seriously, indeed:

Is WikiLeaks a media organization, or is it something else? It’s a question with important implications, given the special protections afforded the press, but it’s one that even New York Times executive editor Bill Keller, whose newspaper has been the most prominent showcase for WikiLeaks’ document dumps, can’t seem to make up his mind about.

“I think a news organization like mine should be a little humble about trying to define who’s entitled to be called a journalist,” Keller said this afternoon at a forum on “Secrecy and Journalism in the Media Age,” hosted by Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab. “Personally, I’d advocate a fairly expansive definition.”

Asked point-blank whether that definition should be so expansive as to include Julian Assange, WikiLeaks’ recently-released-on-bail frontman, however, Keller hedged.”I don’t regard Julian Assange as a kindred spirit,” he said. “If he’s a journalist, he’s not the kind of journalist that I am.”

Keller did allow that WikiLeaks “has moved more in the direction of behaving like a journalistic organization. They have gone from an absolutist view of transparency with an at least suggested motive of embarrassing or bringing down bad governments to an organization that has been leaking out the documents in a more journalistic fashion, [including] redacting them. I don’t think they’ve become my kind of news organization, but they have evolved.”

But Keller was very clear that he was not treating WikiLeaks as a fellow news entity in using their material. Whereas he described The Guardian, which supplied the Times with the most recent batch of WikiLeaks material after Assange cut the paper off, as “a partner in this,” Keller would not say the same of WikiLeaks itself. “Throughout this experience, we have regarded Julian Assange and his merry band of provocateurs and hackers as a source,” he said. “I will not say a source pure and simple, because, as any reporter or editor can attest, sources are rarely pure or simple.”

Keller said he would be disturbed to see the government attempt to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act, but not necessarily because he’d view it as an attack on press freedom. “Legality aside, it would send up a bit of an alarm signal to me,” he said. “As an editor, I find the Espionage Act a kind of scary thing in the wrong hands. It’s an abusable law.”

 

Daniel Ellsberg backs Aussie group for AssangePosted: 16 Dec 2010 04:24 PM PST

 

 

Soon Israel will be surrounded by walls on all sidesPosted: 16 Dec 2010 04:14 PM PST

Because Israel isn’t enough of a ghetto already. Any lessons from history, Zionists?

After the separation barrier against Palestinian territories, Israel has begun to build a new wall, this one to keep migrants from Africa out.

The new wall is coming up on the Egyptian border, and with Egyptian support. The Israeli government approved plans late last month to build a detention camp near its border with Egypt to house illegal African immigrants. Local activists decried the move, which they say flies in the face of internationally accepted human rights norms.

“The idea of a prison built expressly for African immigrants is not only racist, it also contravenes basic tenets of international law,” said Hafez Abu Saeda, president of the Cairo-based Egyptian Organisation for Human Rights.

On November 28, Israel’s cabinet approved construction of a camp to temporarily accommodate undocumented African immigrants that enter Israel from neighbouring Egypt.

According to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who provided little else by way of detail, the project comes within the context of a wider plan to halt the “wave of illegal immigrants” entering the country in search of employment.

 Israel claims that within recent years tens of thousands of African migrants have illicitly crossed the Egypt-Israel border into its territory. Once inside the country, these migrants are often hired as manual labourers – at relatively low wages – by Israeli farms and in settlements.

 

“Sweet smell” of (partial) liberationPosted: 16 Dec 2010 02:46 PM PST

 

 

Assange freedomPosted: 16 Dec 2010 12:11 PM PST

He’s out, on bail, and gave the following speech on the steps outside the British court:

It’s great to smell the fresh air of London again.

First, some thank yous. To all the people around the world who have had faith in me, who have supported my team while I have been away. To my lawyers, who have put up a brave and ultimately successful fight, to our sureties and people who have provided money in the face of great difficulty and aversion. And to members of the press who are not all taken in and considered to look deeper in their work. And I guess finally, to the British justice system itself, where if justice is not always the outcome at least it is not dead yet.

During my time in solitary confinement in the bottom of a Victorian prison I had time to reflect on the conditions of those people around the world also in solitary confinement, also on remand, in conditions that are more difficult than those faced by me. Those people also need your attention and support.

And with that I hope to continue my work and continue to protest my innocence in this matter and to reveal, as we get it, which we have not yet, the evidence from these allegations. Thank you.

 Just watched Pilger’s The War You Don’t See

Posted: 16 Dec 2010 06:39 AM PST

It’s a powerful indictment of journalists keen to sell war. Many reporters and officials admit they were propagandists for conflict and occupation, defending the state to get close to power and good access. Pilger weaves devastation of Iraq/Afghanistan/Palestine with reporters who embed with the state to sell the message. Little shame there. New interview with Julian Assange talking about Wikileaks and why the media is often failing to hold the powerful to account. Whistle-blowing websites have to fill the void.

 

 Don’t forget Bradley Manning

Posted: 16 Dec 2010 04:24 AM PST

The alleged Wikileaks leaker Bradley Manning is in solitary confinement in the US under torture conditions. He has been charged with no crime but has remained in isolation for months on end. In the supposedly most democratic nation on earth.

Reading back over his online conversations with hacker Adrian Lamo from earlier in the year it’s clear Manning was deeply affected by what he saw as US crimes in the Middle East and beyond. And he wanted the world to know:

i want people to see the truth… regardless of who they are… because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.

 

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on A.LOEWENSTEIN ONLINE NEWSLETTER

THE NEW YORK TIMES CURIOUS CHANGE OF HEART ?

NOVANEWS

December 16, 2010

by Sibel Edmonds

Seeing the Light, Sanctioned Illusionary Game, or …I am going to stay true to my pledged position on Wikileaks related topics, and stick with questions rather than hasty analyses and interpretations. I’ve been highly puzzled by the recent position of and statements by the New York Times on Wikileaks Gate.

I don’t know whether to view this puzzling change of heart and position in light of appropriately seasonal concepts of miracles, seeing the light, and the eighth wonder of the world, or, more realistically cynical interpretations based on their reputationhistory and track record. How does a mindset dictating governmentally correct and approved reportage suddenly change into one that sides with transparency and positive journalistic ethics? This is when it is good to have media outlets and investigative journalists who investigate, analyze, and report on other media channels, editors and reporters. Alas, we ain’t got one; at least not one I’ve been able to find, thus, here I am with my list of questions asking you to hop on board and help me come up with possible explanations.

It wasn’t that long ago that the Times’ infamous editor, along with his superiors in the government and inferiors beneath him on the committee, decided to hold the explosive exposé on NSA’s Warrantless Spying Program. The Times held the story not for one day, not for one week, not for one month, but for over a year. It sat on it, and whether easily or with great difficulty, it sealed its every single reporter’s lips.

Together, in a unified fashion, they all sat on this earth-shattering revelation. They served their masters, and threw their weight into highly critical elections. When, after it was way too late, their governmentally sanctioned deed, this journalistically unethical scam, was exposed, they didn’t have much if anything to offer as defense:

“After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns,” James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote, “the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting.”

Troubled by what seemed to be shifting language about the delay — the initial story and a statement issued over Keller’s name said the paper had held the story for “a year,” but Keller laterseemed to acknowledge implicitly that the delay had been longer — Calame kept asking for details, and Keller has now provided them: Drafts of the article were written weeks before the presidential election, Keller says, and “the climactic discussion about whether to publish was right on the eve of the election.”

Why was the story held? That’s a little hard to decipher. Keller has said that he can’t get into too much detail without exposing anonymous sources — and that the administration had assured the Times initially that everyone thought the program was legal…Keller also says that there was a matter of fairness involved — a point with which Calame agrees. “Candidates affected by a negative article deserve to have time — several days to a week — to get their response disseminated before voters head to the polls,” Calame says.

Okay, as I said it wasn’t that long ago and I’m sure many of you remember the entire saga, one that made very clear the position of the Times, their modus operandi and their true masters. And this is exactly why I was left confused and highly puzzled with the Times’ recent change of heart and 180 degree change in position:

But the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. ..As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.

The same Bill Keller, who obeyed the government on censoring the illegal wiretapping of all Americans for over a year, and without any hesitation, had this to say on publishing Wikileaks’ cables:

Look, I absolutely believe that governments have an obligation to keep certain things secret, you know, not just diplomacy — military operations, the codes to the nuclear weapons. I mean, there are lots of things that governments have the right to keep secret. It’s their job to keep it secret. It’s not the press’s job to do that.

Granted, the Times has already admitted to having their to-be-published cables and to-be-covered WikiLeaks issues vetted and blessed by their mighty governmental masters:

U.S. officials submitted suggestions to The Times, which asked government officials to weigh in on some of the documents the newspaper and its partners wanted to publish.

And:

But we were concerned at the Times, and it’s one of the reasons that we went through 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.

Yet, the questions, remain; at least for me. To what can we attribute this curious and sudden change of heart? After all we are talking about the NY Times of Judith Miller, the cover up of the Downing Street Memo, the year-long burial of NSA wiretapping, and much more. Let’s start with the most innocent possibilities and work our way up from there:

-Is it simply due to the competitive market and nature of the news business? Unlike the NSA illegal wiretapping disclosure, this cache of leaks was given to more than one news outlet in more than one country. Did NY Times find the option of censoring it while international competitors did otherwise too big a pill to swallow?

-Is it because they secured the US government’s ‘vetted, sanctioned and blessed’ stamp? Releasing documents that have been vetted and redacted by the US government can serve several purposes: information management – where people get to read and know what the government wants them to read and know, strategic information warfare – where the government counters and neutralizes the damage caused by the leak by placing their own spin and maintaining direction control…

-Is it brought about by some supernatural or spiritual experience on the part of NY Times decision makers? Maybe some supernatural or mythical power decided to make an appearance before them? Maybe it is a case of a terminal illness bringing the editor (or editors) closer to death, thus, more fearful of potential consequences of their past and present evil deeds (think purgatory and think hell)? Maybe there is such a thing as seeing the light – that it is not limited to some serial killer waiting on death row?

-Is the entire thing an illusion created by the same illusion-makers who have been at work for a long time? The media plays the most important role in the game of illusion-making; think a magician and his set of props, then think the shadow government and its delivery vehicle…and then, think US media.

I’m sure I’m missing several other equally or even more significant questions, but then again that’s one of the purposes of posting it on this blog and getting your input. Please chime in, add your questions, and help plug in as many answers as we can.

 

Posted in USAComments Off on THE NEW YORK TIMES CURIOUS CHANGE OF HEART ?

NEVER FORGET: HOW 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS WERE BETRAYED BY THE GOP

NOVANEWS

December 17, 2010

by Michael Leon

  

Thursday night marked the final “Daily Show” of the year — and the decade — so it’s fitting that Jon Stewart spent its entirety discussing something both near to his heart and tied an event that happened nearly 10 years ago: the 9/11 First Responders Bill.

By Katla McGlynn in the Huffingon Post

Stewart has probably spent more segments this year on the legislation known as the Zadroga bill than any other topic. The bill would provide $7 billion in benefits for those who first responded on 9/11 and are now experiencing subsequent health problems such as cancer and respiratory disease. While it has passed in the House, Senate Republicans are filibustering it so that it doesn’t pass in the Senate.

However, Congress did just agree on and pass the controversial tax cut bill that will give tax cuts to everyone including the very rich.

“Yes!” Stewart exclaimed. “That is astoundingly good news for firefighters who make over $200,000 a year.”

Nearly pulling his hair out at one point, Stewart expressed his annoyance at “the party that turned 9/11 into a catchphrase” now blocking legislation to help its heroes. Adding to his frustration, none of the three major networks have covered the story in over two months. Surprisingly, Stewart realized this was a actually a job for Fox News, “the nation’s leading source of 9/11-based outrage.”

But how does the conservative network feel about Republicans blocking the bill? As Stewart showed, Fox news hasn’t gotten one 9/11 first responder to talk about why they need the Zadroga Bill. in fact, only one network actually picked up the story in a meaningful way: Al Jazeera.

“Our networks were scooped with a sympathetic Zadroga Bill story by the same network Osama bin Laden sends his mix-tapes to!” Stewart said with frustration. “This is insane!”

In the following segment, which you can watch below, Stewart interviewed four real 9/11 first responders and heard their response to the fillibuster. Things get emotional, but it is a must-watch for anyone who cares to hear how Congress’s actions are affecting the heroes of 9/11.

WATCH:Stewart’s segment on the Zadroga Bill

Posted in USAComments Off on NEVER FORGET: HOW 9/11 FIRST RESPONDERS WERE BETRAYED BY THE GOP

WIKI-WARNING-LITTLE GREEN MEN COMING

NOVANEWS

December 16, 2010

by Gordon Duff

DON’T BET ON IT

IS THE TRUTH REALLY OUT THERE?

 

Those “in the know” have long since picked up the fact that Wikileaks is a game, or “game theory warfare” as Jeff Gates puts it.  The players, a Rothschild law firm, the pro-Israel gang at the New York Times, Guardian and Der Spiegel and the Mossad.  The leaks have been, as Zbigniew Brzezinski puts it, a combination of chickenfeed and “seeded, pointed material” from an “intelligence agency.”  Now we are told by Wayne Madsen and others that Wikileaks has UFO materials and is going to buy its way out of the “dog house” with them.

Wikileaks was Israel.  Now, Wikileaks is going to be X-Files.

What can we expect, what is in the UFO files of the United States Air Force?

UFO secrets have been the Holy Grail of the intelligence community since 1947 and the Roswell landing or Roswell crash, more appropriately, in New Mexico.  The Air Force initially released a story of a “flying saucer” landing but, in an almost “military” manner, clumsy and “ham handed,” rescinded its own reports and screamed “weather balloon.”  I was at Wurtsmith AFB in October 1973, a “national secret,” when the UFO flyover happened there.  This “national secret” was, at the time, witnessed by thousands of people, reported on TV, newspapers and joked about by everyone but the Air Force personnel that a 300 foot flaming “whatever” traveling at Mach 1.5 scared the bejeezusout of.

They later reported that one as a “weather balloon” also.  It was seen flying 2000 miles across the United States, burning like the sun the entire way.  I believe them.  It was a weather balloon.  I just want to know what it was made of.  I want everything I own to be made out of that stuff.

For years, the reports have been of the Air Force adapting UFO technology at the Area 51 base in Nevada, triangular aircraft capable of unusual maneuvers with some type of drive capable of using aspects of physics I won’t begin to describe.  Dozens, maybe even hundreds of movies, books and television shows have been made about this subject or various derivations of the Majestic 12 document, the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” of the UFO world.

THE WIKI-RUMOR, WIKI-BLACKMAIL

These stories, true or not, national secrets or conspiracy theory of such power and breadth as to become a major cultural phenomena, are old news, long debunked by “debunkers” long proven to be unreliable, untruthful and untrustworthy.  Welcome to uncertainty.

Where there is uncertainty, there is also something to hide.  The rumor wouldn’t be “out there” unless it had power of some kind.  Accept the fact that something startling  may or may not be released to the public, depending on whether some agenda of Wikileaks or Wikileaks and Israel, is met.

Can America’s UFO secrets force an attack on Iran?  This is the kind of game that could be played here.

AIR FORCE RUMORS, PATRIOTS OR DELUSIONAL LUNATICS?

For decades, Air Force pilots have told of UFO’s.  Even America’s astronauts have seen them, up close and personal.  The number of reports, “close encounters” of one kind or another, 1 through 4, number in the tens of thousands.  The number of UFO witnesses who can be considered “extremely credible” is over 1000.  Many world governments consider UFOs a real threat and are, occasionally, public about it.

Whenever I receive “rumors,” and they flood in from the Air Force like anything, I try to consider why I am being told what I am being told.  Everyone has an agenda.  Destroying the credibility of a journalist is a joke.  I report on people who are narcissists, sociopaths and degenerates and these are our civilian and military leaders.  Is something going to make me seem worse, worse than Bush and Cheney?  I don’t think so.

This is the extent of what I am being told by people who are responsible parties, Air Force officers, folks normally seen as having “the right stuff.”

  • America has UFO technology and aircraft that perform well beyond anything the public imagines

  • some aspect of the fictional version, be it Men in Black or X Files, isn’t fiction

Is this where Wikileaks is going?

WORSE, CRAZIER OR WIKI-CRAZIER?

The Wiki-rumors talk about UFO, Nazi Germany and a base in Antarctica.  There is a reference, from several sources, of some kind of UFO war.  I know absolutely nothing about this but…

This is what I was told by sources who had known escaped Nazi elite:

During the war, Hitler had been in contact with aliens.  Some sort of agreement or arrangement was made.  A base was built in Antarctica.  Germany had build a “complimentary” facility in Chile which existed until well after the war.  The “Nazi/Space Alien” base in Antarctica was also controlled by the Nazis and, at some point, by Nazis and Americans, well after the end of the war.

I know of people alive today, folks serious as a “heart attack,” who claim to have visited these facilities.  These are “ratline” people.

Now many of us are being told that Wikileaks has materials referencing exactly this.

MY RECOMMENDATION, DO EXACTLY AS I SAY

My first recommendation is to not listen to me at all.  I don’t really trust anyone.  Oh.  I am now “Mulder” of X Files.  Didn’t he always say that:  “Trust no one.”

Good advice, trust no one.  I certainly don’t trust Wikileaks, not because everything they say is false, some certainly is, but because Wikileaks has been “outed” as having an agenda.

IF YOU BELIEVE IN WIKILEAKS, YOU ARE READY

I can make assumptions, predictions, that I seem to be good at.  The Air Force is keeping something from us and someone, finally, has gotten into their “underwear drawer.”  Every high official, more than a few presidents included, has sought the secret UFO files.  Carter, Reagan, Gore, others, have claimed these files exist but were denied access to them.

Is the truth so unpleasant, so disgusting that it can’t be revealed?

This is a probability.

Everything points that direction, what is seen and proven, the rumors, the secrecy, and now the threat from Wikileaks.

What I do know is that what we will be told.  Unless the United States relinquishes defacto control of our military forces to the State of Israel, Julian Assange is going to unleash his stockpile of UFO documents.

The sign that the United States has surrendered will be increased rhetoric from President Obama over Iran’s peaceful nuclear program and, at some point, the false flag attack on American forces in the Persian Gulf that the Bush administration was prevented from enacting in 2007.

We watch, we wait, but do we believe?

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on WIKI-WARNING-LITTLE GREEN MEN COMING

ZIONIST LOBBY’S NEW ORDER FOR OBAMA

NOVANEWS

December 16, 2010

by Debbie Menon

Calls upon the Administration to affirm that the United States will oppose any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums and will veto any resolution to that end by the United Nations Security Council (my emphasis added);

By Alan Hart / STAFF WRITER

Howard Berman — Chairman of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, California’s representative

After his appointment as Chairman of the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs, California’s representative Howard Berman told The Forward, “Even before I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist.” This is the man, one of the Zionist lobby’s most influential stooges in Congress, who introduced House Resolution 1734 which gives President Obama his new orders.

Thoroughly disingenuous, the resolution, which was drafted by AIPAC and in my view is an indication of panic on its part, was approved unanimously by the House of Representatives on 15 December. It

– strongly and unequivocally opposes any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums;

– calls upon the Administration to continue its opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state;

– calls upon the Administration to affirm that the United States would deny any recognition, legitimacy, or support of any kind to any unilaterally declared ‘‘Palestinian state’’ and would urge other responsible nations to follow suit, and to make clear that any such unilateral declaration would constitute a grievous violation of the principles underlying the Oslo Accords and the Middle East peace process;

– calls upon the Administration to affirm that the United States will oppose any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums and will veto any resolution to that end by the United Nations Security Council (my emphasis added);

– calls upon the President and the Secretary of State to lead a high-level diplomatic effort to encourage the European Union and other responsible nations to strongly and unequivocally oppose the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state or any attempt to seek recognition of a Palestinian state by the United Nations or other international forums; and

– supports the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the achievement of a true and lasting peace through direct negotiations between the parties.

As M.J. Rosenberg predicted (http://america-hijacked.com/2010/12/15/aipacs-palestinian-bashing-bill-rushed-to-floor-today) the Berman bill passed overwhelmingly, actually unanimously, “because that is how things work in a citywhere policy is driven by campaign contributions – and not just on this issue.” He added: “The only difference between how AIPAC lobbyists dictate U.S. Middle East policy and pretty much every other major lobby is that AIPAC (American-Israeli,  Public Affairs Committee) works to advance the interests of a foreign country. In other words, comparisons to the National Rifle Association would only be applicable if the gun owners that the NRA claims to represent lived in, say, Greece. Oh, and NRA-backed bills usually take longer than a day to get to the House floor.” (My emphasis added).

What Rosenberg thinks and writes is particularly interesting because in the early 1980s he was editor of AIPAC’s weekly newsletter Near East Report.

He noted that as is usual with Berman, “his resolution exclusively blames Palestinians for the collapse of peace talks; not a word of criticism of Israel appears.”

He went on: “There is only one reason that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations collapsed. It is the power of the ‘pro-Israel lobby’, led by AIPAC, which prevents the United States from saying publicly what it says privately: that resolution of a conflict which is so damaging to U.S. interests is consistently being blocked by the intransigence of the Netanyahu government and its determination to maintain the occupation.” (My emphasis added).

For now, Rosenberg says, the bottom line is money. “The U.S. government dances to Israel’s tune because it is afraid to risk campaign contributions.” But he also gives optimism a voice (as I sometimes do).

“It doesn’t have to be that way. If the administration and Congress put U.S. interests (and Israel’s too) over the craving for campaign contributions, the United States could tell the Israeli government that, from now on, our aid package comes with strings. Like an IMF loan (although aid to Israel is a gift, not a loan), we could say that in exchange for our billions, our UN vetoes of resolutions criticizing Israel, and our silence in the face of war crimes like Gaza, we want Israel to end the occupation within, say, 24 months. And Israel would have to comply because our military assistance is, as AIPAC likes to call it, ‘Israel’s lifeline.’”

I would like Rosenberg to be right about how Israel’s leaders would respond to real American pressure, but I am very far from convinced that he is. As my regular readers know, I think there is a possibility, even a probability, that if real American push came to Zionist shove, the preference of Israel’s deluded leaders would be to tell the American president of the moment (and the whole world) to go to hell. Whether or not they would actually do so would depend, I imagine, on the state of Israeli (Jewish) public opinion at the time. If most Israeli Jews were still as brainwashed by Zionist propaganda as they are today, they would probably back the mad men who lead them.

Question: Why do I think that Berman’s resolution is an indication of AIPAC panic?

The answer, most of it, is in my last post which was headlined Obama’s last card – Will he play it? My main point was that because he does not have to honour the promises made to Netanyahu to secure his delivery of a 90-day freeze on illegal settlement activity on the occupied West Bank, Obama is free to discontinue the presidential practise of vetoing Security Council resolutions which are critical of Israel.

My speculation is that AIPAC drafted House resolution 1734 and then got Berman to rush it through because it feared that Obama is thinking about instructing the US ambassador to the UN to the effect that there will be no further American veto on Security Council resolutions which are critical of Israel and/or call for the recognition of a Palestinian state inside 1967 (pre-war) borders.

So the question waiting for an answer is  – Will Obama obey Zionism’s latest orders?

Copyright@ Alan Hart

Related Post:

ALAN HART: ISRAEL—OBAMA’S LAST CARD

Posted in USAComments Off on ZIONIST LOBBY’S NEW ORDER FOR OBAMA

SURVIVAL RATES IN THE WARSAW GHETTO

NOVANEWS

Does anyone know anything about survival rates in the Warsaw Ghetto?

 

I am trying to substantiate this argument from Derrick Jensen:

But remember, the Jews who participated in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, even those who went on what they thought were suicide missions, had a higher rate of survival than those who did not fight back. Never forget that…Before we talk about that we have to return for a moment to the Jews who participated in theWarsaw Ghetto uprising.

When I wrote earlier about those Jews who resisted having a higher rate of survival than those who went along, and then at least implied that if we resist the ongoing holocaust around us we also may ultimately have a higher rate of survival than those who do not resist, I was in one sense cheating. There was a major difference between them and us. The Jews weren’t attempting to take on the Nazis by themselves. By the time they rebelled, the Germans were losing ground in the East.

Also I have a review of Grant Smith’s Spy/Trade up at Electronic Intifada. Analysis of the Lobby as a capitalist institution? Political economy of American imperialism in the Middle East are next up, ’cause school is out.

Technorati Tags: 

Related posts:

  1. they drew the right lessons from Warsaw A couple days ago, I posted the photo of Yonatan…
  2. the Lobby as a component of global class war Listen to the interview linked above, cross-posted from Pulse….
  3. the Lobby debate is a joke So in a break from reading the delight­ful ethno­gra­phies of…
  4. yes, American foreign policy is about oil I realized that I had never taken the trouble to…

 

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Posted in WorldComments Off on SURVIVAL RATES IN THE WARSAW GHETTO

WHO IS BEHIND WIKILEAKS?

NOVANEWS

December 14, 2010

by Gordon Duff

Who is Behind Wikileaks?

by Michel Chossudovsky

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ 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 is 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 acknowledged that the project had been “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 a 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. (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 Eurasia and the Middle East was “appealing” to America’s elites, i.e. it seemingly matched stated US foreign policy objectives. Moreover, the composition of the Wikileaks team (which included Chinese dissidents), not to mention the methodology of “exposing secrets” of foreign governments, were in tune with the practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering “regime change” and fostering “color revolutions” in different parts of the World.

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 London Economist has 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?

Wikileaks 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 and 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.” (SeePBS 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 Sanger 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, the president of the World Bank, Robert. B. Zoellick and Philip Zelikow, former 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).

It is worth noting that several American journalists, members of the Council on Foreign Relations have 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 also members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (Membership Roster – Council on Foreign Relations)

In turn, the Rockefellers have an important stake as shareholders of several US corporate media.

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 as 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 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, emphasis added)

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 under the banner of truth and transparency 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. It also questions the legitimacy of the UN Security Council Sancions regime directed against Iran.

Moreover, in a bitter irony, the selective redacting of the Wikileaks embassy cables by the NYT has usefully served not only to dismiss the central issue of fake intelligence but also to reinforce, through media disinformation, 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 organizations, 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. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism”, Global Research, Montreal, 2005). These are US sponsored covert intelligence operations using Saudi and Pakistani intelligence as intermediaries.

In this regard, the use of the Wikleaks documents by the media tends 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 and consultation 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)

Reports of this nature serve to provide legitimacy to US drone attacks against alleged terrorist targets inside Pakistan.

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 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 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 the 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 a 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 1970s. 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” (GWOT) 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, Global Research, January 3, 2003).

Today’s corporate media is an instrument of war propaganda, which begs the question:  why would the NYT 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 is 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, on balance, 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 to 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 firm, 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 data bank; 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. With regard to financial information, the release of data pertaining to a particular bank instigated via Wikileaks by a rival financial institution, could potentially be used to trigger the collapse or bankrutpcy of the targeted financial institution.

All the Wiki-facts are selectively redacted, they are then “analyzed” and interpreted by a media which serves the economic elites.

While the numerous pieces of information contained in the Wikileaks data bank are accessible, the broader public will not normally take the trouble to consult and scan through the Wikileaks data bank. 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. In this regard, we should also stand firm in preventing the prosecution of Julian Assange in the US.

Posted in Politics1 Comment

ON WIKILEAKS STRATEGY: TOO MANY HORS DOEUVRES?

NOVANEWS

December 14, 2010

by Sibel Edmonds

 

Decreased Appetite & Increased Termination Risk before the Main Course

As I have said before I am not ready to analyze or talk about Wikileaks’ recent exposé. It’s still too early, and so far too little with too insignificant implications has been released. I am still waiting for the highly revealing, explosive, and or severely implicating cables; if any. What I want to do, however, is to briefly discuss Wikileaks’ strategy in releasing the documents, so far, and to get your two cents on it.

In fact, I want to briefly discuss the exact reason why I haven’t even begun delving into this so far released material. My major concerns and questions regarding Wikileaks’ strategy are as follows:

Based on the well-established and well-known mainstream media attention curve, isn’t it self-defeating and damaging to begin the cables release with a jumble of highly inconsequential and insignificant documents with little or no implications? Why not use the peak media attention period for the most significant and highly explosive information with even greater implications? Isn’t this like serving too many so-so appetizers before the main course of high gastronomical value, and waste the best part on full and bloated diners?

From a risk management perspective, isn’t it way too risky to start the dissemination with unimportant and insignificant material, and provide the enemies (governments) with ample opportunity to strike back, interfere, block, and or destroy the ‘real’ prized material of great consequence? Why not start the release with the most explosive and highly incriminating documents as one major way of reducing the risk of potential interruption and or destruction?

Granted there’s so much I don’t know. There may be a method to this madness. They may have a very clever strategy obscured from my angle of view. The purpose may be other than what has met the eye thus far. As you can see there still exist way too many unanswered questions, mind-boggling methodologies, and head-scratching strategies, for me to open my humble mouth to issue a personal statement or a verdict. I go on impatiently waiting. How about you?

# # # #

This piece was originally published at Boiling Frogs Post.

Posted in PoliticsComments Off on ON WIKILEAKS STRATEGY: TOO MANY HORS DOEUVRES?

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING

December 2010
M T W T F S S
« Nov   Jan »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031