Barak encourages attack on Iran, N. Korea
The document, dated June 2, 2009 and sent from the American Embassy in Tel Aviv, details Barak's visit with a two Congressional delegations. It quotes Barak as saying that "'no option should be removed from the table' when confronting Iran and North Korea."
"Barak asked rhetorically how a lack of firm response to North Korea would be interpreted by Iran's leadership, speculating the US government would be viewed as a 'paper tiger'," the diplomatic cable reads.
also: Barak in Wikileaks: 'Fate of world rests on stopping Iran'
Iran Fortifies Its Arsenal With the Aid of North Korea
Around the World, Distress Over Iran
Orders from Clinton - US Diplomats Told to Spy on Other Countries at United Nations
Foreign Policy Meltdown - Leaked Cables Reveal True US Worldview
Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme
Fear of 'different world' if Iran gets nuclear weapons
Israel primed to attack a nuclear Iran
The Telegraph:Will Israel Attack Iran By Christmas?
To me, the most revealing parts of the Wikileaks diplo-docu-dump are about the Middle East. We already knew that the Sunni Arab autocrats cannot bear the thought of a Shiite nuclear bomb and are almost as worried as the Israelis. But now the evidentiary proof brings it home:
The Saudi king was recorded as having "frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons programme", one cable stated. "He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake," the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with the US general David Petraeus in April 2008.
The cables also highlight Israel's anxiety to preserve its regional nuclear monopoly, its readiness to go it alone against Iran – and its unstinting attempts to influence American policy. The defence minister, Ehud Barak, estimated in June 2009 that there was a window of "between six and 18 months from now in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable". After that, Barak said, "any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage."
If we take Barak's word for it, the Israelis could launch World War III within a month. And would carry much of the Sunni Arab autocrats with it. One notes that Saudi foreign diplomats and functionaries are more wary about war with Iran than the royals. But there seems little discussion about the momentous consequences of a third war launched by the West against a Muslim country in less than a decade.
more:
Wikileaks Takes Pro-Israel Stance?
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wikileaks Latest Document Dump
Barak encourages attack on Iran, N. Korea
The document, dated June 2, 2009 and sent from the American Embassy in Tel Aviv, details Barak's visit with a two Congressional delegations. It quotes Barak as saying that "'no option should be removed from the table' when confronting Iran and North Korea."
"Barak asked rhetorically how a lack of firm response to North Korea would be interpreted by Iran's leadership, speculating the US government would be viewed as a 'paper tiger'," the diplomatic cable reads.
also: Barak in Wikileaks: 'Fate of world rests on stopping Iran'
Iran Fortifies Its Arsenal With the Aid of North Korea
Around the World, Distress Over Iran
Orders from Clinton - US Diplomats Told to Spy on Other Countries at United Nations
Foreign Policy Meltdown - Leaked Cables Reveal True US Worldview
Saudi Arabia urges US attack on Iran to stop nuclear programme
Fear of 'different world' if Iran gets nuclear weapons
Israel primed to attack a nuclear Iran
The Telegraph:Will Israel Attack Iran By Christmas?
To me, the most revealing parts of the Wikileaks diplo-docu-dump are about the Middle East. We already knew that the Sunni Arab autocrats cannot bear the thought of a Shiite nuclear bomb and are almost as worried as the Israelis. But now the evidentiary proof brings it home:
The Saudi king was recorded as having "frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons programme", one cable stated. "He told you [Americans] to cut off the head of the snake," the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir said, according to a report on Abdullah's meeting with the US general David Petraeus in April 2008.
The cables also highlight Israel's anxiety to preserve its regional nuclear monopoly, its readiness to go it alone against Iran – and its unstinting attempts to influence American policy. The defence minister, Ehud Barak, estimated in June 2009 that there was a window of "between six and 18 months from now in which stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons might still be viable". After that, Barak said, "any military solution would result in unacceptable collateral damage."
If we take Barak's word for it, the Israelis could launch World War III within a month. And would carry much of the Sunni Arab autocrats with it. One notes that Saudi foreign diplomats and functionaries are more wary about war with Iran than the royals. But there seems little discussion about the momentous consequences of a third war launched by the West against a Muslim country in less than a decade.
more:
Wikileaks Takes Pro-Israel Stance?
The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wikileaks Latest Document Dump
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way"Alleged quote by FDR.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way"Alleged quote by FDR.
'Secret' CIA memo on Wikileaks is not very revelatory
The document you have been reading was passed to us by an individual stepping forward to reveal the truth or preserve the integrity of the historical record. WikiLeaks is acknowledged to be the most successful defender of confidential sources and the public’s right to know. If you have confidential material, contact us securely at: https://sunshinepress.org/
'Secret' CIA memo on Wikileaks is not very revelatory
The document you have been reading was passed to us by an individual stepping forward to reveal the truth or preserve the integrity of the historical record. WikiLeaks is acknowledged to be the most successful defender of confidential sources and the public’s right to know. If you have confidential material, contact us securely at: https://sunshinepress.org/
Sweden's The Local
Guardian
Telegraph
Aug 21 (Reuters) - Sweden has withdrawn an arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who had been wanted on suspicion of rape and molestation, the National Prosecutor's Office said on Saturday.
It said in a statement on its website that Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne had determined there were not enough grounds for the warrant.
A spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office said Assange, whose whistle-blowing website last month published secret U.S. military files on Afghanistan, was no longer wanted by Swedish authorities.
"She (Finne) has come to the decision that he is no longer suspected of rape. All the charges concerning rape have been lifted," she told Reuters.
A police investigation will continue.
Sweden's The Local
Guardian
Telegraph
Aug 21 (Reuters) - Sweden has withdrawn an arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who had been wanted on suspicion of rape and molestation, the National Prosecutor's Office said on Saturday.
It said in a statement on its website that Chief Prosecutor Eva Finne had determined there were not enough grounds for the warrant.
A spokeswoman for the prosecutor's office said Assange, whose whistle-blowing website last month published secret U.S. military files on Afghanistan, was no longer wanted by Swedish authorities.
"She (Finne) has come to the decision that he is no longer suspected of rape. All the charges concerning rape have been lifted," she told Reuters.
A police investigation will continue.
Let's pretend we care about soldiers and civilians.
Let's make believe that we fight wars for righteous reasons.
What really goes on is none of the public's business. Just pay your taxes and shut up.
Lies are to protect you from the facts.
Scapegoats make for great diversion.
Unauthorized leaks need new laws. We've been telling you that the internet is dangerous.
___________ fill in the blank.
The more we accept the official story, the more sense the world will make. There are wonderful things waiting for those who believe what our loving and benevolent government says. I used to want to look it all up and find the real "truth", but now I realize that the real truth is what they tell me it is.
Let's pretend we care about soldiers and civilians.
Let's make believe that we fight wars for righteous reasons.
What really goes on is none of the public's business. Just pay your taxes and shut up.
Lies are to protect you from the facts.
Scapegoats make for great diversion.
Unauthorized leaks need new laws. We've been telling you that the internet is dangerous.
___________ fill in the blank.
The more we accept the official story, the more sense the world will make. There are wonderful things waiting for those who believe what our loving and benevolent government says. I used to want to look it all up and find the real "truth", but now I realize that the real truth is what they tell me it is.
AMY GOODMAN: And for those who say you’re an antiwar campaigner, and so, though the documents aren’t suspect, because they’re clearly from the US government, your motives are, what is your response?
JULIAN ASSANGE: We have clearly stated motives, but they are not antiwar motives. We are not pacifists. We are transparency activists who understand that transparent government tends to produce just government. And that is our sort of modus operandi behind our whole organization, is to get out suppressed information into the public, where the press and the public and our nation’s politics can work on it to produce better outcomes.
{more - the transcript and video}
AMY GOODMAN: And for those who say you’re an antiwar campaigner, and so, though the documents aren’t suspect, because they’re clearly from the US government, your motives are, what is your response?
JULIAN ASSANGE: We have clearly stated motives, but they are not antiwar motives. We are not pacifists. We are transparency activists who understand that transparent government tends to produce just government. And that is our sort of modus operandi behind our whole organization, is to get out suppressed information into the public, where the press and the public and our nation’s politics can work on it to produce better outcomes.
{more - the transcript and video}
Getting this message out via "critical" stories in "liberal" publications is much more effective than dishing up another serving of patriotic hokum on Fox News or at a presidential press conference. In fact, it is so much more effective that one almost begins to wonder about the ultimate provenance of the leaks. Did some deep-delving gamester allow these files to get out? Most likely not; but their ultimate effect does provoke the age-old question, cui bono?
If I believed anything would come of this document dump, if I believed it would actually lead to, say, the prosecution of even one single person for a war-related crime, or to a genuine debate over the morality of the war in the political and media establishments, or even a 5 point rise in public opposition to the Terror War project, then I would rejoice, and embrace the flashy packages of the NYT, Guardian and Der Spiegel at their own self-inflated valuation.
But I honestly believe that the net effect will be simply to entrench the conventional wisdom about the war in the halls of power -- and in the echo chambers of opinion -- on both sides of the Atlantic. We have already seen far too many atrocities, brutalities and acts of criminal folly countenanced, when they are not actually praised, far too many times -- over and over and over again -- in the course of the last decade to believe that these disgorgings of junk intelligence and apparatchik memos will make any difference.
Any difference for the better, that is. For I believe they will supply plenty of ammunition to those bent on further murder and plunder. {more - Chris Floyd}
People often ask me if I think this source or that source is disinfo…
My response is always: TREAT EVERY SOURCE AS DISINFO.
You’ll avoid disappointment when the thing starts serving up rat poison—which, unfortunately, happens a lot.
Julian Assange’s recent comment in the Belfast Telegraph about 9/11, however, may be a more tangible source of concern for me. I know Assange isn’t an idiot, so I see three other possibilities:
1. He is profoundly ignorant of the vast body of material that demonstrates that the 9/11 spectacle was a false flag operation.
2. He’s “picking his battles” and not wanting to have to deal with the inevitable conspiracy theory stigma that could threaten his media access
3. He’s running a limited hangout/honeypot
Of these three options, I doubt that it’s number two.Vet the data as you would anything else from any source. Use your skills of discernment. For me, the most worrying thing about WikiLeaks is the promotion it receives from the corporate media. Even the trash talking Wired is promoting Wikileaks by constantly mentioning it.
In the end, though, obsessing about disinfo this and disinfo that is generally a waste of time. It’s safe to assume that damn near everything we come across contains disinfo.
There is the issue of stench, however. Sources that say, categorically, that there’s nothing to see here on 9/11 smell really bad to me. As bad as anything can smell. {more - Revelations}
Hillary Widens Pak US "Historic Distrust"
" We Should Execute Leakers!"
NATO Rocket Kills 52 Civilians In Afghanistan!
We've Got To Start Focusing On Our Problems At Home!
The whole war is a big show, has been since the fall of Tora Bora. This war and the one in Iraq were both won on the battlefield after a few months of fighting. The decision was made to carry-on with this American Kabuki theater, where remnants of the Iraqi Army, as well as the Taliban, became mercenaries for America, Britain and Israel, staging war simulations to mislead Western audiences.
{more at Peter Chamberlin's site}
Getting this message out via "critical" stories in "liberal" publications is much more effective than dishing up another serving of patriotic hokum on Fox News or at a presidential press conference. In fact, it is so much more effective that one almost begins to wonder about the ultimate provenance of the leaks. Did some deep-delving gamester allow these files to get out? Most likely not; but their ultimate effect does provoke the age-old question, cui bono?
If I believed anything would come of this document dump, if I believed it would actually lead to, say, the prosecution of even one single person for a war-related crime, or to a genuine debate over the morality of the war in the political and media establishments, or even a 5 point rise in public opposition to the Terror War project, then I would rejoice, and embrace the flashy packages of the NYT, Guardian and Der Spiegel at their own self-inflated valuation.
But I honestly believe that the net effect will be simply to entrench the conventional wisdom about the war in the halls of power -- and in the echo chambers of opinion -- on both sides of the Atlantic. We have already seen far too many atrocities, brutalities and acts of criminal folly countenanced, when they are not actually praised, far too many times -- over and over and over again -- in the course of the last decade to believe that these disgorgings of junk intelligence and apparatchik memos will make any difference.
Any difference for the better, that is. For I believe they will supply plenty of ammunition to those bent on further murder and plunder. {more - Chris Floyd}
People often ask me if I think this source or that source is disinfo…
My response is always: TREAT EVERY SOURCE AS DISINFO.
You’ll avoid disappointment when the thing starts serving up rat poison—which, unfortunately, happens a lot.
Julian Assange’s recent comment in the Belfast Telegraph about 9/11, however, may be a more tangible source of concern for me. I know Assange isn’t an idiot, so I see three other possibilities:
1. He is profoundly ignorant of the vast body of material that demonstrates that the 9/11 spectacle was a false flag operation.
2. He’s “picking his battles” and not wanting to have to deal with the inevitable conspiracy theory stigma that could threaten his media access
3. He’s running a limited hangout/honeypot
Of these three options, I doubt that it’s number two.Vet the data as you would anything else from any source. Use your skills of discernment. For me, the most worrying thing about WikiLeaks is the promotion it receives from the corporate media. Even the trash talking Wired is promoting Wikileaks by constantly mentioning it.
In the end, though, obsessing about disinfo this and disinfo that is generally a waste of time. It’s safe to assume that damn near everything we come across contains disinfo.
There is the issue of stench, however. Sources that say, categorically, that there’s nothing to see here on 9/11 smell really bad to me. As bad as anything can smell. {more - Revelations}
Hillary Widens Pak US "Historic Distrust"
" We Should Execute Leakers!"
NATO Rocket Kills 52 Civilians In Afghanistan!
We've Got To Start Focusing On Our Problems At Home!
The whole war is a big show, has been since the fall of Tora Bora. This war and the one in Iraq were both won on the battlefield after a few months of fighting. The decision was made to carry-on with this American Kabuki theater, where remnants of the Iraqi Army, as well as the Taliban, became mercenaries for America, Britain and Israel, staging war simulations to mislead Western audiences.
{more at Peter Chamberlin's site}
Hamid Gul Response to WikiLeaks Allegations
Hamid Gul Response to WikiLeaks Allegations
He never stays in one place more than two nights. Is that because the CIA wants to kill him? "Is it in the CIA's interest to assassinate me? Maybe. But who would do it?" Isn't he brave to appear in public? "Courage is an intellectual mastery of fear," he says. "It's not that you don't have fear, you just manage your risks intelligently."
He never stays in one place more than two nights. Is that because the CIA wants to kill him? "Is it in the CIA's interest to assassinate me? Maybe. But who would do it?" Isn't he brave to appear in public? "Courage is an intellectual mastery of fear," he says. "It's not that you don't have fear, you just manage your risks intelligently."
