Why Wikileaks Must Be Protected?

On 26 July, Wikileaks released thousands of secret US military files on the war in Afghanistan. Cover-ups, a secret assassination unit and the killing of civilians are documented. In file after file, the brutalities echo the colonial past. From Malaya and Vietnam to Bloody Sunday and Basra, little has changed. The difference is that today there is an extraordinary way of knowing how faraway societies are routinely ravaged in our name. Wikileaks has acquired records of six years of civilian killing for both Afghanistan and Iraq, of which those published in the Guardian, Der Spiegel and the New York Times are a fraction.

There is understandably hysteria on high, with demands that the Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is “hunted down” and “rendered”. In Washington, I interviewed a senior Defence Department official and asked, “Can you give a guarantee that the editors of Wikileaks and the editor in chief, who is not American, will not be subjected to the kind of manhunt that we read about in the media?” He replied, “It’s not my position to give guarantees on anything”. He referred me to the “ongoing criminal investigation” of a US soldier, Bradley Manning, an alleged whistleblower. In a nation that claims its constitution protects truth-tellers, the Obama administration is pursuing and prosecuting more whistleblowers than any of its modern predecessors. A Pentagon document states bluntly that US intelligence intends to “fatally marginalise” Wikileaks. The preferred tactic is smear, with corporate journalists ever ready to play their part.

On 31 July, the American celebrity reporter Christiane Amanapour interviewed Secretary of Defence Robert Gates on the ABC network. She invited Gates to describe to her viewers his “anger” at Wikileaks. She echoed the Pentagon line that “this leak has blood on its hands”, thereby cueing Gates to find Wikileaks “guilty” of “moral culpability”. Such hypocrisy coming from a regime drenched in the blood of the people of Afghanistan and Iraq – as its own files make clear – is apparently not for journalistic enquiry. This is hardly surprising now that a new and fearless form of public accountability, which Wikileaks represents, threatens not only the war-makers but their apologists.

Their current propaganda is that Wikileaks is “irresponsible”. Earlier this year, before it released the cockpit video of an American Apache gunship killing 19 civilians in Iraq, including journalists and children, Wikileaks sent people to Baghdad to find the families of the victims in order to prepare them. Prior to the release of last month’s Afghan War Logs, Wikileaks wrote to the White House asking that it identify names that might draw reprisals. There was no reply. More than 15,000 files were withheld and these, says Assange, will not be released until they have been scrutinised “line by line” so that names of those at risk can be deleted.

The pressure on Assange himself seems unrelenting. In his homeland, Australia, the shadow foreign minister, Julie Bishop, has said that if her right-wing coalition wins the general election on 21 August, “appropriate action” will be taken “if an Australian citizen has deliberately undertake an activity that could put at risk the lives of Australian forces in Afghanistan or undermine our operations in any way”. The Australian role in Afghanistan, effectively mercenary in the service of Washington, has produced two striking results: the massacre of five children in a village in Oruzgan province and the overwhelming disapproval of the majority of Australians.

Last May, following the release of the Apache footage, Assange had his Australian passport temporarily confiscated when he returned home. The Labor government in Canberra denies it has received requests from Washington to detain him and spy on the Wikileaks network. The Cameron government also denies this. They would, wouldn’t they? Assange, who came to London last month to work on exposing the war logs, has had to leave Britain hastily for, as puts it, “safer climes”.

On 16 August, the Guardian, citing Daniel Ellsberg, described the great Israeli whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu as “the pre-eminent hero of the nuclear age”. Vanunu, who alerted the world to Israel’s secret nuclear weapons, was kidnapped by the Israelis and incarcerated for 18 years after he was left unprotected by the London Sunday Times, which had published the documents he supplied. In 1983, another heroic whistleblower, Sarah Tisdall, a Foreign Office clerical officer, sent documents to the Guardian that disclosed how the Thatcher government planned to spin the arrival of American cruise missiles in Britain. The Guardian complied with a court order to hand over the documents, and Tisdall went to prison.

In one sense, the Wikileaks revelations shame the dominant section of journalism devoted merely to taking down what cynical and malign power tells it. This is state stenography, not journalism. Look on the Wikileaks site and read a Ministry of Defence document that describes the “threat” of real journalism. And so it should be a threat. Having published skilfully the Wikileaks expose of a fraudulent war, the Guardian should now give its most powerful and unreserved editorial support to the protection of Julian Assange and his colleagues, whose truth-telling is as important as any in my lifetime.

I like Julian Assange’s dust-dry wit. When I asked him if it was more difficult to publish secret information in Britain, he replied, “When we look at Official Secrets Act labelled documents we see that they state it is offence to retain the information and an offence to destroy the information. So the only possible outcome we have is to publish the information.”

John Pilger is an internationally renowned investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. His latest film is The War on Democracy. His most recent book is Freedom Next Time: Resisting the Empire (Bantam/Random House, 2006). Read other articles by John, or visit John's website.

54 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. hayate said on August 19th, 2010 at 8:47am #

    Need more Wikileaks type groups exposing these crimes. The more Wikileaks there are, the more difficult for the ziofascists/fascists to neutralise them.

  2. mary said on August 19th, 2010 at 9:37am #

    Glad you put this up Eds.

    This from Craig Murray craigmurray.org
    August 19, 2010

    Julian Assange wins Sam Adams Award for Integrity

    The award is judged by a group of retired senior US military and intelligence personnel, and past winners. This year the award to Julian Assange was unanimous.

    Previous winners and ceremony locations:

    Coleen Rowley of the FBI; in Washington, D.C.
    Katharine Gunn of British intelligence; in Copenhagen, Denmark
    Sibel Edmonds of the FBI; in Washington, D.C.
    Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan; in New York City
    Sam Provance, former sergeant, U.S. Army, truth-teller about Abu Ghraib; in Washington, D.C.
    Frank Grevil, major, Danish army intelligence, imprisoned for giving the Danish press documents showing that Denmark’s prime minister disregarded warnings that there was no authentic evidence of WMDs in Iraq; in Copenhagen, Denmark
    Larry Wilkerson, colonel, U.S. Army (retired), former chief of staff to Secretary Colin Powell at the State Department, who has exposed what he called the “Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal”; in Washington, D.C.

    http://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2010/08/15/can-wikileaks-help-save-lives/

    Not sure yet where this year’s award ceremony will be held, but I’ll be there.

    Posted by craig on 12:15 PM 19/08/10 under Afghanistan | Comments (2)

  3. shabnam said on August 19th, 2010 at 12:29pm #

    Please DON’T TRUST WIKILEAKS. According to many, Julian Assange is part war criminals’ campaign of lies and deception to manipulate information to have you on board. Don’t trust this person who HAS ACCEPTED THE OFFICIAL STOY BEHIND 9/11, like Chomsky, but they are trying to sell him as someone against ‘power.’
    According to ‘secret documents’ where were ‘leaked’ to Wikileaks, Osama Bin Laden is ‘ALIVE’. Benazir Bhutto, told the world that Osama Bin Laden is dead since 2001 three years ago.
    The war criminals are spreading LIES through their AGENT, Assange, to to frighten Americans in order to have them on their site for continuation of illegal wars that are waged by the war criminals against Muslims in many countries. To sell Assange as a ‘credible’ person , the phony ‘human rights’ organizations of the West had to give him number of ‘Awards’ for his phony ‘humanitarian’ work, like many Iranian sell out who are in the services of the intelligent services of the West.

    As William Engdahl writes:
    Since the dramatic release of a US military film of a US airborne shooting of unarmed journalists in Iraq, Wiki-Leaks has gained global notoreity and credibility as a daring website that releases sensitive material to the public from whistleblowers within various governments. Their latest “coup” involved alleged leak of thousands of pages of supposedly sensitive documents regarding US informers within the Taliban in Afghanistan and their ties to senior people linked to Pakistan’s ISI military intelligence. The evidence suggests however that far from an honest leak, it is a calculated disinformation to the gain of the US and perhaps Israeli and Indian intelligence and a coverup of the US and Western role in drug trafficking out of Afghanistan.
    Since the posting of the Afghan documents some days ago the Obama White House has given the leaks credibility by claiming further leaks pose a threat to US national security. Yet details of the papers reveals little that is sensitive. The one figure most prominently mentioned, General (Retired) Hamid Gul, former head of the Pakistani military intelligence agency, ISI, is the man who during the 1980’s coordinated the CIA-financed Mujahideen guerilla war in Afghanistan against the Soviet regime there. In the latest Wikileaks documents, Gul is accused of regularly meeting Al Qaeda and Taliban leading people and orchestrating suicide attacks on NATO forces in Afghanistan.

    The leaked documents also claim that Osama bin Laden, who was reported dead three years ago by the late Pakistan candidate Benazir Bhutto on BBC, was still alive, conveniently keeping the myth alove for the Obama Administration War on Terror at a point when most Americans had forgotten the original reason the Bush Administration allegedly invaded Afghanistan to pursue the Saudi Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks.

    Who is Julian Assange?
    Wikileaks founder and “Editor-in-chief”, Julian Assange, is a mysterious 39-year-old Australian about whom little is known. He has suddenly become a prominent public figure offering to mediate with the White House over the leaks. Following the latest leaks, Assange told Der Spiegel, one of three outlets with which he shared material from the most recent leak, that the documents he had unearthed would “change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars.”
    Yet a closer examination of the public position of Assange on one of the most controversial issues of recent decades, the forces behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center shows him to be curiously establishment. When the Belfast Telegraph interviewed him on July 19, he stated,

    “Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It’s important not to confuse these two….” What about 9/11?: “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.” What about the Bilderberg Conference?: “That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes.”

    That statement from a person who has built a reputation of being anti-establishment is more than notable. First, as thousands of physicists, engineers, military professionals and airline pilots have testified, the idea that 19 barely-trained Arabs armed with box-cutters could divert four US commercial jets and execute the near-impossible strikes on the Twin Towers and Pentagon over a time period of 93 minutes with not one Air Force NORAD military interception, is beyond belief. Precisely who executed the professional attack is a matter for genuine unbiased international inquiry.

    Notable for Mr Assange’s blunt denial of any sinister 9/11 conspiracy is the statement in a BBC interview by former US Senator, Bob Graham, who chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence when it performed its Joint Inquiry into 9/11. Graham told BBC, “I can just state that within 9/11 there are too many secrets, that is information that has not been made available to the public for which there are specific tangible credible answers and that the withholding of those secrets has eroded public confidence in their government as it relates to their own security.” BBC narrator: “Senator Graham found that the cover-up led to the heart of the administration.” Bob Graham: “I called the White House and talked with Ms. Rice and said, ‘Look, we’ve been told we’re gonna get cooperation in this inquiry, and she said she’d look into it, and nothing happened.’”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20580

  4. Max Shields said on August 19th, 2010 at 12:58pm #

    shabnam said on August 19th, 2010 at 12:29pm #

    Thank you Comrade. I have erased all mention of wikileaks, Julian Assange and Noam Chomsky from my memory banks…your wish is my command.

    May the Force be with you….

  5. Deadbeat said on August 19th, 2010 at 1:10pm #

    The fact that Goodman, Chomsky jumped onto the WikiLeaks bandwagon made it suspect.

  6. shabnam said on August 19th, 2010 at 2:02pm #

    More on Wikileaks reveals that you cannot TRUST the war criminals and their agents.

    Chris Floyd writes:
    The much ballyhooed dump of intelligence and diplomatic files concerning the Afghan War has been trumpeted as some kind of shocking expose, “painting a different picture” than the official version of events — revelations that are sure to rock the Anglo-American political establishments to their foundations.
    Ah, here we get down to it. Here’s metal more attractive for our militarists. The treachery of Iran is a constant theme in the leakage — both in the raw, unsifted, uncorroborated “humint” and in the diplomatic cables of puzzled occupiers who cannot fathom why there should be any opposition to their enlightened rule. It must the fault of those perfidious Persians!

    One can only imagine the lipsmacking and handclapping now rampant among the Bomb Iran crowd as they pore over these unsubstantiated rumors and Potomac ass-coverings which are being doled out — by the “liberal” media, no less! — as the new, grim truth about Afghanistan. The Guardian helpfully compiles the incendiary material for them:

    “Iran is engaged in an extensive covert campaign to arm, finance, train and equip Taliban insurgents, Afghan warlords allied to al-Qaida and suicide bombers fighting to eject British and western forces from Afghanistan, according to classified US military intelligence reports contained in the war logs.”
    Yes, no doubt there are a great many “ideological sympathisers” of the Taliban’s Shiite-hating Sunni extremists among the, er, Shiites in Iran. But such nuances don’t matter; all that matters is that you get some headlines out there about “Iran’s covert operations in Afghanistan.” [Because, as we all know, it is an unmitigated evil for any nation to conduct covert operations in another country — unless, of course, that nation is run by nice, clean, English-speaking people.]

    http://www.chris-floyd.com/articles/1-latest-news/1997-leaky-vessels-wikileaks-qrevelationsq-will-comfort-warmongers-confirm-conventional-wisdom.html

  7. lichen said on August 19th, 2010 at 3:16pm #

    Wikileak’s accomplishment are brave, sweeping, and widely commendable. I don’t agree with the ‘fear’ that WL might have blood on their hands; the US government obviously does, and if they, their invading soldeirs, or petty informants die, then good riddens! I trust Wikileaks and the great work of Julian Assange, I don’t trust immature right wing Iranians who spread propaganda online.

  8. shabnam said on August 19th, 2010 at 3:31pm #

    {I trust Wikileaks and the great work of Julian Assange, }

    We know you do, otherwise, it would have not made any sense. You are good for each other. I can trust someone who hides the crimes of US and Israel behind the 9/11 terror attack, then frame 19 Arabs to wage zionist wars. It does not make any sense, does it?

  9. shabnam said on August 19th, 2010 at 3:38pm #

    {I don’t trust immature right wing Iranians who spread propaganda online.}
    PEOPLE HAVE CORRECTLY TOLD YOU EARLIER :

    Lichen:
    Your constant repetition of an unsubstantiated claim does not an argument make. You betray the insulting, non-cognitive mentality of a zionist who denigrates arguments he cannot or will not understand.

    You have been exposed as a “hasbarat.” For definition, see
    (http://www.gregfelton.com/media/2009_09_30.htm)

    Do you remember?

  10. lichen said on August 19th, 2010 at 3:51pm #

    Your insane, paranoid rendering of Julian Assange as supporting an attack on Iran because he isn’t personally interested in 9/11 alternatives is completely pathetic. I haven’t alleged that you are an agent, but just an immature, self-righteous right wing Iranian. I’m also aware you think everyone who disagrees with you, whether they are Iranian citizens or not, are agents of Israel. This sad little delusion of yours is well documented; however I couldn’t care less. I have given my response to the article, and will dedicate no more time to reading or responding to you.

  11. lichen said on August 19th, 2010 at 3:54pm #

    Furthermore, Julian Assange is just one of a vast number of people in the wikileaks organization; he couldn’t possibly do it all himself, so making a personal attack on him is meaningless, and says nothing about the organization. Targeting him makes you just like the american neocons and pentagon pundits.

  12. shabnam said on August 19th, 2010 at 3:59pm #

    {Targeting him makes you just like the american neocons and pentagon pundits.}

    Stop your nonsense and reat the article by William Engdahl:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20580

  13. Max Shields said on August 19th, 2010 at 5:18pm #

    lichen you are arguing with some very transcendent minds. We are all suspects and only those who know the secret password can continue to discuss…DV has turned from a discourse on dissonent topics to a sick bunch of puppies cogitating (at least for those of us who have not found the “way”) about the inner secrets of Zionism spelled backwards. It’s all there lichen…like Paul McCarntey’s death, you have to play it backwards…MSINOIZ is the secret code. Shabnam is the cipher. He’s found on the WEB an Oracle who speaks in tongues and tells him, deadbeat and teafoe2/dan e what is happening while we slumber. They are transcendent souls that Bhudda would find exhalting….

    DV has become home to the insane. This is the new asylum for the lost souls… on planet Tricon.

  14. shabnam said on August 19th, 2010 at 5:52pm #

    {DV has become home to the insane. This is the new asylum for the lost souls… on planet Tricon.}

    Now, it is obvious who is right about the reason behind the war in Iraq. Now, whoever repeats the lies that you and your tribe were spreading around to hide the hand of Israel and her lobby behind the war, and instead were spreading the slogan “No Blood for Oil” will be laugh at.
    Read the article by Jeff Gates. Today, majority of people think the same.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkjmi9D-E1g&feature=channel

    You are right about DV but you have forgotten to add ZIONIST to ‘insane’.

    By the way, Shabnam is a woman.

  15. BartFargo said on August 19th, 2010 at 5:59pm #

    LOL @ Max Shields…I think you’re describing the Church of the Sub-Sub-SubGenius.

  16. lichen said on August 19th, 2010 at 6:36pm #

    Yes, Max, the disease on this site is completely unavoidable; they set up camp under every article regardless of the topic and the discussion turns back again to zionism, to noam chomsky, amy goodman, naomi klein, and now Julian Assange is added to the blacklist. We are reading a gossip tabloid obsessed with exposing the true secrets of these celebrities (I believe tf2 even implied there was an illict affair between ag and nk on another thread–I tried to scroll past as fast as possible) and how they and we alike are all zionist operatives. They (db, tf2, hyte…) know all the answers ahead of time, and it has all been proven by world-changing youtube rants. The whole world agrees with them now, and they’ve accomplished so much.

  17. Deadbeat said on August 19th, 2010 at 6:59pm #

    Max Shield writes …

    MSINOIZ is the secret code. Shabnam is the cipher. He’s found on the WEB an Oracle who speaks in tongues and tells him, deadbeat and teafoe2/dan e what is happening while we slumber. They are transcendent souls that Bhudda would find exhalting….

  18. Deadbeat said on August 19th, 2010 at 7:10pm #

    lichen writes …

    Yes, Max, the disease on this site is completely unavoidable; they set up camp under every article regardless of the topic and the discussion turns back again to zionism, to noam chomsky, amy goodman, naomi klein, and now Julian Assange is added to the blacklist.

    Talk about delusional inversion. You’d think Deadbeat, Teafoe2, Shabnam, hayate has a daily show on television or something; are doing book tours; are given access to a network of publishers; and have an enormous following. I think I did here an activist or two the other day quoting Deadbeat or was that Teafoe2.

    If they think that then I guess I never realized how POWERFUL my voice is in relation to Goodman, Chomsky, and Klein.

    I guess that why Max and Lichen are here…

    They’re FIGHTING THE POWER. :-)

  19. teafoe2 said on August 19th, 2010 at 8:05pm #

    I see the Usual Perps are starting to get desperate; now this scum on a rock resorts to pure fiction, telling us he “believes” I said something implying something.

    Previously I had tried to believe Lichen had maybe half a clue and at least meant to be a part of the struggle against oppression, but finally I’m forced to admit I’ve been kidding myself.

    I’m really disappointed in Pilger, but I’ve learned to expect most “Celebrated Journalists” to stumble & expose the feet of clay that go with their territory, i.e., their much-envied niches in the MSM. But fortunately Wm Engdahl has stepped up to the plate, followed by Jeff Gates.

    Not that I’m ready to condemn Assange without more definite evidence of his intent. He may have believed, like Pilger, that he was truly doing a great thing and doing it at considerable risk. I wouldn’t be surprised if the global ZPC covert action apparatus turned around and whacked Assange, which would lend additional credence to his “revelations” in the minds of the news-consuming public.

    I need to reread and weigh the content cited above, which indicates the Wikileaks “revelations” contain a great deal of pro-war, pro-isreal propaganda lies.
    I’d have to make a determination of the balance between useful information exposing the warmongers and hasbrats, and the amount and significance of content which is easily judged as more useful to the ZPC, US DOD, IOF, and the “intelligence community” than to victims of same.

    I find it astonishing that it never occurred to an experienced reporter like Pilger to wonder if these “revelations” might not be a propaganda “trojan horse”.

    I’m not surprised by the kneejerk “suspension of disbelief” displayed by our in-house Covert Hasbara crew, but I thought Pilger above that sort of amateurism. Oh well, Assume Nada, when will I ever learn:)

    Long ago I used to be engaged in activities which often required that I do my best to ascertain the intentions/motivations of persons I had recently met. A standard rule of thumb I learned from friends more experienced in the field went like this:

    “When things are right, they are very simple and clear. When they are intricate, convoluted, complicated, it’s usually because somebody is trying to put some shit in the game”.

    Of course there’s nothing complicated or mysterious about what Xam and Nechil are up to: both are Part of the Problem.

    All they ever post is assertions not backed by facts. Just read this garbage above: not a fact in sight. Not even a coherent allegation.

    The fact that these, uh, “persons” get off by denigrating people who possess knowledge said “persons” lack the capacity or objectivity to understand, does not make their allegations credible.

    Dear reader: use your common sense, and Assume Nothing until a preponderance of evidence gives you probable cause to believe it is true. Which means you have to apply a standard to the information offered to you; if not the Federal or a state Evidence Code, maybe the guidelines major newspapers demand that apprentice reporters memorize… and then conveniently forget when so ordered:)

    Reasoning has to start from a Premise, something accepted as Factual. Reasoning demands that propositions can be put in Syllogistic form: “If A, then B”.

    So don’t just take my word for it when I tell you Xam and the other one are up to no good; read what they say, see what they provide to support their assertions, weigh the likely effects if their arguments are accepted, and make up your own mind.

    Think For Yourself, and

    assume nothing

  20. teafoe2 said on August 19th, 2010 at 8:20pm #

    Fact: I have never visited or logged in on Facebook, Youtube, Twitter or any of the “Social” webpages currently faddish among trendy youngfolks, using this username or any other, this IP or another. So if there are “worldchanging” or any other kind of “rants” on any of them I’m sorry, I missed out.

    I do regularly visit Mondoweiss, PulseMedia, Counterpunch, Black Agenda Report and Antiwardotcom. I subscribe to several email update news services, including EI, DN!, Atimes and a number of others. I’m on Jas Petras mailing list, ditto Grant Smith, ditto J Blankfort, ditto Cynthia McKinney, ditto Mary Ratcliff/SF Bayview.

    But Facebook etc is too hi-tech for me. So if you want me to consider a rant posted on it, repost it here.

    Let me see what other “works of the imagination” these geniuses have posted above:

  21. teafoe2 said on August 19th, 2010 at 8:33pm #

    “litchen” made this erroneus statement:
    “…they set up camp under every article regardless of the topic…”.

    I do not comment on every article that appears on DV. I don’t even read most of them, because I don’ t have unlimited time to read. So the above statement is factually incorrect, not true.

    As to commenting fairly often on items of interest to me, since when does that amount to “setting up camp”? If it does, both Mr L. & his pardner Xam earned their Eagle Scout badges long before I got here:)

  22. hayate said on August 19th, 2010 at 9:36pm #

    teafoe2

    “Fact: I have never visited or logged in on Facebook, Youtube, Twitter or any of the “Social” webpages currently faddish among trendy youngfolks,”

    I had an account on youtube – hosting some videos for a music group. It got deleted, naturally. :D Since then, I don’t host material on youtube or google or yahoo, but use their rivals. There are dozens of them, from all over the world and it’s a good way to exchange video oriented info, such as alternative news reports and decent music videos, ( and sometimes just audio ).

    Facebook is a combo of mossad/cia data mining and neurosis:

    Facebook – CIA Profile Database (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpLNlSKugHw)

    CollegeHumor Originals: Facebook – Off (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvepYYNjfBk&feature=channel)

    While twitter takes psychotic behaviour to the outer extremes of the universe and is totally useless:

    TWITTER WHORE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALbH63Ali9U)

    TWITTER WHORE part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwGzdbLweUI&feature=channel)

    ;D

  23. Deadbeat said on August 19th, 2010 at 10:16pm #

    T42 writes …

    I find it astonishing that it never occurred to an experienced reporter like Pilger to wonder if these “revelations” might not be a propaganda “trojan horse”.

    I’m not surprised. When was the last time you saw Pilger directly confront Zionism? And what I mean by directly I mean Zionism as an ideology and global system.

  24. mary said on August 20th, 2010 at 1:49am #

    Here’s one instance. http://thecst.org.uk/blog/?p=1242 and many more if you google john pilger and zionism.

    Why is this site turning into some sort of set ‘em up and knock ‘em down site? Anyone who commands respect (and I respect John Pilgern for his verymany years of investigative reporting, some of it in war zones, his documentary films, his writing and just for the fact that he seems to be a thoroughly decent human being) gets knocked down here like a ninepin. .

  25. mary said on August 20th, 2010 at 1:49am #

    Here’s one instance. http://thecst.org.uk/blog/?p=1242 and many more if you google john pilger and zionism.

    Why is this site turning into some sort of set ‘em up and knock ‘em down site? Anyone who commands respect (and I respect John Pilger for his very many years of investigative reporting, some of it in war zones, his documentary films, his writing and just for the fact that he seems to be a thoroughly decent human being) gets knocked down here like a ninepin.

  26. denk said on August 20th, 2010 at 2:17am #

    does look suspicious …
    http://tinyurl.com/2b826tc

  27. Max Shields said on August 20th, 2010 at 4:18am #

    Mary you are just noticing what has been emerging here. All are suspects…zionism is an excuse for polluting the site with sophmoric non-sense. Suspect this is an attempt to implode DV. Between hayate and teafoe2 they’re non-stop posting machines.

  28. teafoe2 said on August 20th, 2010 at 10:49am #

    Open the link provided by Denk! Before you say another word re this issue, read what you’ll find on that link.

    Now that I realize how far back up the timeline, how long ago writers/observers with professional reputations as not MSM hacks started raising questions about Wikileaks & Assange, I’m even more astonished to see Pilger still buying into the whole scam weeks later.

    I say this because heretofore I’ve held Pilger’s work in very high esteem.

    BTW, I don’t think the negative assessment I’ve been forced to make about Pilger’s reporting/commenting on this particular story amounts to “knocking him down” like a ninepin. Maybe in the UK or Land of Oz, Ninepins is a popular game but US bowlers more often use ten:)

  29. denk said on August 20th, 2010 at 8:13pm #

    mary

    even IF wikileak [it even mimick the controversial wikipaedia] turn out to be another nwo psyop, it doesnt implicate john pilger in anyway, he’d just be one of the millions that got duped.

  30. teafoe2 said on August 20th, 2010 at 8:56pm #

    I can’t wait to see what Pilger and others who accept the Assange version as unassailable will have to say about what more suspicious observers have noticed about the content of the classified documents.

    Funny how people fall in love with the conclusions they first jump to about issues, and refuse to allow any new information to dampen their ardor.

    From where I sit, it is possible that Pilger is one hundred per cent right, and those who have questioned the Left Conventional Wisdom about these “revelations” are totally wrong and motivated by a desire to serve the War & Hasbarat machine. So I’m willing to consider any new information or rebuttals offered by those whose unshakeable faith in Pilger’s infallibility has inspired them to label those who have urged taking a second look as “conspiracy theorists”, “non-stop posting machines”, zionist dupes etc.

    I can’t see where the information contained in the “leaks” is that earth-shaking. One reason why I didn’t pay more attention to the story in the first place is that I didn’t see any new information coming out, nothing that wasn’t common knowledge already. So to me the Assange critics’ version makes more sense, seems more consistent with what is known about US/Izzy methods. And with Occam’s Razor.

    I’m sorry but poohpoohing researchers who don’t uncritically accept the Official Conspiracy Theory about IX-XI as “conspiracy nuts” doesn’t fly with me. I don’t know what happened that day other than what was shown on TV. But the Kean commish report is obviously a pile of crap, a snowjob. Neither do I accept in toto any of the alternative scenarios that have been offered.

    To me the only intelligent position on matters you don’t have enough information about to be certain one way or another, is Agnosticism.

    Right now I lean toward the post-Pilger take on Assange. He doesn’t seem like a very credible individual to me, from what I’ve seen/read. But as the Fat Lady said, It’s Not Over Till It’s Over.

  31. hayate said on August 20th, 2010 at 9:24pm #

    teafoe2

    Be wary of the info that site denk linked to. It misrepresents Young’s position quite a bit. I have been following this “controversy” ever since madsen started attacking Wikileaks. Young’s main gripe with Wikileaks is how they are run. He is against the big money Wikileaks is seeking in donations and the unaccountability of Assange handling the books. Also against the apparent ego trip going on. I’ve read what he’s said at his site and there was nothing about Young saying Wikileaks is a cia front. He generally praises Wikileaks as an idea, but opposes the way Assange is running it. Young consistently expresses the attitude of trust no one. He also advises that no whistleblower protection scheme is foolproof, there is always a way for professionals to break into it and find out who the person is, so don’t rely upon another site’s security when passing info to sites like Wikileaks, especially by computer, which is totally unsafe. When Wikileaks was down several months ago, or just posting a header page, Young hosted the Wikileaks archives on his Cryptome site as a pdf for download.

    As for madsen, he’s an ex-spook, or he contracted with them. A lot of what he puts out is disinformation or gibberish. But he’s good at it, it was his old job, right? He completely misrepresented Young and Young took issue with this at Cryptome. A lot of what madsen comes up with is unique to madsen – something that should always raise a red flag. There have been several times recently, when listening to madsen yak in an interview where he has come up with some pretty absurd explanations for events that a little common sense and elementary deductive reasoning would show a much simpler scenario. I wish I could remember one of these occasions, but my reaction to what madsen spun was “wtf are you talking about, it’s quite obvious what went down without you spinning this inane bs”. Another thing about madsen is that not long before he “exposed” Wikileaks as a “cia front”, madsen changed his site from a free site to a “pay to read” site. It’s far more likely madsen is a front than Wikileaks. Though a front for whom? The gist of his material has me thinking paleo-con u.s. spooks, rather than neo-con israeli ones. But that’s just idle speculation from the stuff he puts out.

    I put my own opinion on Wikileaks in another post that seems to have disappeared. I don’t see enough proof of anything negative about them to accuse them of any shilling. Initially I was very enthusiastic about them, but madsen’s attack got me wondering, since I’ve long figured madsen a shill for the u.s. security establishment, I figured madsen was running the attack to give Wikileaks cred. That’s how my mind works… :D The acceptance Wikileaks found with the nyt, guardian and der spiegel also seems suspicious, considering these rags have not helped the anti-war movement before now and have served as guv mouthpieces for war. The nyt is an israeli mouthpiece. Der spiegel I know less of, not seeing a lot of their material, but they’ve been pro-war in what I have seen. The guardian has offered some anti-war povs, but it’s co-paper, the observer has been pro-war from the start, so the guardian’s stance is hypocrites seeking to make money off the anti-war readers and influence them subtly over to the ziofascist side. All 3 of these media houses are ziofascist owned and run, a very important point, btw. Now why would these shill outfits all of a sudden print info provided by Wikileaks? Especially the nyt, which has been very hostile to those opposing zionist war making. That’s what raises the most questions in my mind about Wikileaks, why these zionist shill outfits have chosen to air Wikileaks leaks. My worry is more of co-optation of Wikileaks, rather than Wikileaks being afront. Assange is an ego, and he’s going for big money. How much will he compromise Wikileaks’ original mission to get material on the zionist occupied media and get their fiscal support for his outfit? I’ve seen too many outfits that started out as decent get corrupted in the process of getting exposure on the zionist occupied media, and in maintaining high donations/funding levels.

    One of the tactics of disinformation is to create so much doubt in people’s minds, of whom you want to influence, that they are not sure what to think. That they start cynically discounting everything and opt out and just take care of “jack”. Remember the dirt the ziofascists are always trying to smear Hamas with, about being an israeli owned quisling org?

    I think there should be many Wikileaks, something Young has stressed, to spread the love around and reduce the damage caused when the ziofasists/fascists put their training to work. As for Wikileaks, and Assange, I’m still sitting on the fence.

  32. denk said on August 20th, 2010 at 10:27pm #

    teafoe
    *I can’t see where the information contained in the “leaks” is that earth-shaking. One reason why I didn’t pay more attention to the story in the first place is that I didn’t see any new information coming out, nothing that wasn’t common knowledge already*

    teafoe, hayate

    i look at it from an cui bono angle,

    all the “leaks” about “collateral damages” are harmless stuff….. it’s not as if the “world communities” [sic] would march in the streets and stop amerikka from launching the next aggression.
    fact is, usaf and death squads wiping out wedding parties and funeral process have been going on every other day for yrs now, so much so that when msm like bbc reports on another bombing atrocity it didnt even bother to identify the bomber coz its presumed to be redundant.
    tinyurl.com/d6my5u
    after yrs of daily saturating bombardment of such callous reporting which sounds like some kind of football scores these days, the “world comunities” has been imunized and desensitized against any outrage to the barbarity.
    the unthinkable has been normalised.
    tinyurl.com/5sqyu

    otoh, the “leaks” about pakistan and iran’s alleged shenanigans in afpak would be a godsend for the war mongers to “manufacture consent” for their coveted “regime change” in pakistan and iran etc. [see, we told u so didnt we ?]

    someone say that a good propaganda consist of 99 % harmless facts which serves to bolster the credibility of the 1% disinfo useful to the propagandist.

    time will tell.

  33. mary said on August 21st, 2010 at 4:06am #

    ‘One of the tactics of disinformation is to create so much doubt in people’s minds, of whom you want to influence, that they are not sure what to think.’

    Quite Hayate and as Denk says Time will tell’

    What do you think of this latest about Assange? Someone wants him cut off at the knees.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11047025

  34. Don Hawkins said on August 21st, 2010 at 6:21am #

    One of the tactics of disinformation is to create so much doubt in people’s minds, of whom you want to influence, that they are not sure what to think.’ Mary

    Beyond a doubt truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness.
    Leonardo da Vinci

    Which is an illusion

  35. denk said on August 21st, 2010 at 7:18am #

    mary

    at this moment
    your guess is as good as mine

  36. hayate said on August 21st, 2010 at 9:03am #

    mary

    “What do you think of this latest about Assange?”

    Just saw an ap story on that a few minutes ago. Looks like the someone is slow at learning new tricks. The Swedish prosecutor has already withdrawn the warrant, saying there is no evidence of rape. I guess next, someone will plant some drugs, or a Koran and a box cutter.

    Sweden withdraws warrant for WikiLeaks founder

    By KARL RITTER, Associated Press Writer Karl Ritter, Associated Press Writer – 6 mins ago

    “STOCKHOLM – Swedish prosecutors withdrew an arrest warrant for the founder of WikiLeaks on Saturday, saying less than a day after the document was issued that it was based on an unfounded accusation of rape.

    The accusation had been labeled a dirty trick by Julian Assange and his group, who are preparing to release a fresh batch of classified U.S. documents from the Afghan war.

    Swedish prosecutors had urged Assange — a nomadic 39-year-old Australian whose whereabouts were unclear — to turn himself in to police to face questioning in one case involving suspicions of rape and another based on an accusation of molestation.

    “I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape,” chief prosecutor Eva Finne said, in announcing the withdrawal of the warrant. She did not address the status of the molestation case, a less serious charge that would not lead to an arrest warrant.

    Prosecutors did not answer phone calls seeking further comment.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100821/ap_on_hi_te/eu_sweden_wikileaks

  37. mary said on August 21st, 2010 at 9:46am #

    I hadn’t heard of this denouement Hayate. It’s like a piece of theatre. What will the trolls (and the BBC) say now?

    Is Karl Ritter any relation to Scott Ritter btw? It was tried on him wasn’t it?

  38. teafoe2 said on August 21st, 2010 at 10:56am #

    hayete, Denk: thanks for the links you provided.

    I found John Young and Cryptome pretty credible, just my impression from A) the journalists who pester him for interviews; B) the attitude he expresses. And of course for the mass of material Cryptome has published.

    I’d say he probably knows more about Wikileaks than anybody than Assange himself? He seems to react to this whole thing in a way that seems pretty sane; he isn’t baying for Assange’s scalp but isn’t doing PR for him either.

    Apparently there has been just massive disclosures of “secret documents” at various places online going on for some time now. The earliest dates I saw on Cryptome were 2006. So these recent Wikileaks “leaks” apparently aren’t as much of a novelty as some appear to have believed.

    The anomaly in this whole fuss to me is the eagerness the WSJ, WaPo, NYT, DN! and such have displayed to get the story out & draw max attn to it.

    “someone say that a good propaganda consist of 99 % harmless facts which serves to bolster the credibility of the 1% disinfo useful to the propagandist.”

    “the “leaks” about pakistan and iran’s alleged shenanigans in afpak would be a godsend for the war mongers to “manufacture consent” for their coveted “regime change” in pakistan and iran etc.”

    I guess I need to review what Assange said or published that tends to support the Izzy/DOD/Statedept line on Evil Iran. If anybody has some at fingertips, would appreciate anything you can post on this thread?

    Same re Pakistan, which I’ve always assumed was the real reason Izzy ordered Obummer to escalate in Afghanistan.

    One thing is clear: things are not always as clear as they appear on first glance:)

  39. teafoe2 said on August 21st, 2010 at 12:44pm #

    Somebody at some pt asked me if I’d actually read any of the material leaked by Wikileaks in this release. The answer is No, I’ve only seen on TV,mostly DN! and read what I came across, excerpts and scraps.

    So if anybody has excerpted portions of what Wikileaks “leaked” that they think are extremely damaging to the US/Nato/Izzy war/occupation of AfPak and propaganda justifying same, why don’t you post choice bits on this thread, so we can see what a great service Assange has done us? Like reports of stuff we didn’t know was going on already? Stuff never reported by Al Jazeera, Mosaic, Link TV, Al Ahram, Russia Today, Press TV, Asia Times?

  40. teafoe2 said on August 21st, 2010 at 12:53pm #

    It may be that the Wiki leaks are really and truly earthshaking in that they provide for the kind of dummies who make up the majority of the English-language Media consuming public unshakeable evidence of US/Nato criminality the rest of us took for granted. But I don’t see much indication they have led to a groundswell of US public opposition to Obummer-admin military/colonial policy.

    Is the horrified reaction by the MSM & Officialdom genuine, or is it designed to draw attn to stuff that is not the main focus of the report but is more or less casually assumed to be the case? Which “common sense assumptions” are the real message Assange’s handlers want to propagate?

  41. mary said on August 21st, 2010 at 1:03pm #

    Does anyone read Swedish? This is the ‘paper’ that originally published the story. http://www.expressen.se/

    It is part of the Bonnier multinational conglomerate who have interests in media, press, magazines, publishing, gaming, etc and have an annual t/o of over $4billion. The Bonniers were originally German Jews named Scheye, changed to Schie, then Hirschel and finally Bonnier a French variant of the name Gutkind. They arrived in Sweden in the early C19 and set up a publishing business. They recently bought titles from Time Inc.

    (www.bonnier.com)

    I see on their home page that they have the author Elizabeth Gilbert of Eat Pray Love fame and referred to by Martha Rosenberg on another article here, and Martha Stewart coming to speak in Sweden in September at Grid 10, at the suggestion of Hillary Clinton. Very cosy. An ex-criminal, a war criminal and a phony ‘author’ of a trashy book.

    Any bells ringing?

    Another Q. Are the Bonniers the Swedish equivalent of News International Corp?

  42. BartFargo said on August 21st, 2010 at 1:14pm #

    The simple truth is that the logs leaked so far have been of a low-level secrecy classification, and so don’t reveal anything that wasn’t already known or strongly suspected. It’s also important to realize that the logs don’t necessarily depict the reality of what’s happening on the ground, they just reveal how the US military/intelligence apparatus views the situation. Of course to the mainstream press these are the same thing. Maybe the 15,000 logs they’ve been holding back will contain more substantial info; the content of the logs released so far suggests this isn’t likely but there has to be a reason they’ve decided to review them before release.

    And if it’s true that Pakistan’s ISI and Iran have ties to the Taliban, can you blame them? USA/NATO are obviously not going to be “winning” this war, and are positioning themselves to negotiate with the Taliban. Pakistan &Iran share long, treacherous borders with Afghanistan, and so their actions can be viewed as a pragmatic strategy of developing relations with a group that are going to play a significant role in the political future of Afghanistan. Besides, is it surprising that there would be large amounts of cross-border trafficking in weapons and finances into a war zone? Similarities to the flow of Gringo weapons & cash into the hands of drug gangs operating in Mexico is apparently lost on the media.

  43. Deadbeat said on August 21st, 2010 at 1:44pm #

    mary writes …

    Here’s one instance. http://thecst.org.uk/blog/?p=1242 and many more if you google john pilger and zionism. Why is this site turning into some sort of set ‘em up and knock ‘em down site? Anyone who commands respect (and I respect John Pilger for his very many years of investigative reporting, some of it in war zones, his documentary films, his writing and just for the fact that he seems to be a thoroughly decent human being) gets knocked down here like a ninepin.

    mary responds to my remark with a link that branches to a critique of a Pilger article. From there you can jump to the actual article. However the point I am making is WHY Pilger would be unquestionably susceptible to the Wikileaks release that supports the “U.S. hegemony” as the explanation for world’s ills rather than taking a DEEPER LOOK as to why the “U.S. hegemony” explanation has become a veil for Zionism.

    T42 asks …

    I find it astonishing that it never occurred to an experienced reporter like Pilger to wonder if these “revelations” might not be a propaganda “trojan horse”.

    Here’s is why I DO NOT FIND IT ASTONISHING…

    http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=519

    Every subsequent “war” Israel has waged has had the same objective: the expulsion of the native people and the theft of more and more land. The lie of David and Goliath, of perennial victim, reached its apogee in 1967 when the propaganda became a righteous fury that claimed the Arab states had struck first. Since then, mostly Jewish truth-tellers such as Avi Schlaim, Noam Chomsky, the late Tanya Reinhart, Neve Gordon, Tom Segev, Uri Avnery, Ilan Pappe and Norman Finklestein have dispatched this and other myths and revealed a state shorn of the humane traditions of Judaism, whose unrelenting militarism is the sum of an expansionist, lawless and racist ideology called zionism.

    Clearly Pilger is extremely confused as to who the truthtellers are. This confusion easily leads Pilger down the wrong road and makes him susceptible to Chomskyism.

    Yes Pilger sees Zionism as a racist ideology and this is why he was criticized in the link that mary presents but Pilger fails to see Zionism as a GLOBAL SYSTEM whose tentacles are firmly embedded in the United States political economy. I have yet to see Pilger examine the role of the Left in aiding and abetting the expansion of Zionism’s political influence. If he did Pilger would never had been invited to speak at the ISO. If you listen to his ISO presentation you’d never guess that Zionism has any major influence in the United States.

  44. Deadbeat said on August 21st, 2010 at 1:56pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    Mary you are just noticing what has been emerging here. All are suspects…zionism is an excuse for polluting the site with sophmoric non-sense. Suspect this is an attempt to implode DV. Between hayate and teafoe2 they’re non-stop posting machines.

    And for you Max is it polluting DV with Chomskyite nonsense like the rhetorical how can little tiny Israel control the United States or and pseudo-eco-libertarian that really not unlike the “survivalist” crap you get from Alex Jones.

  45. Deadbeat said on August 21st, 2010 at 5:22pm #

    Here’s an analysis of the Australian Coup. I’m not sure where Pilger weighed in. They are having their election this weekend and I believe it’s too close to call.

    Pro-Zionist Betrayal in Australia’s 2010 Gillard Labor Coup

  46. Max Shields said on August 21st, 2010 at 6:54pm #

    Deadbeat, not sure what you’re talking about regarding Alex Jones?

    Let me tell you flat out Deadbeat. You come across here like some of the right-wingers I come across…only instead of blaming Muslims, you blame Zionists. Now I agree that what we see with AIPAC and Israel is not healthy for the planet and would like to see both gone. But you’re on a witch hunt. Just like the Zionists, and those who would use a form of racism to hunt down anyone of color who happens to be a Muslim. But what you do, is take a self-righteous stance, and than become judge and jury in McCarthy-like style. We see it first with Chomsky, than Naomi Klein, than Goodman and Finkelstein and now Pilger, Glenn Ford and Assange (and I’m sure I’ve missed a number).

    I’m not sure what informs you Deadbeat. There’s all kinds of shit on the internet and you can use it to prove black is white if that’s your aim. The fact that you have gathered a few coherts only adds to the distortion that starts from a common premise – even I share – to one that begins to raise suspicion about everyone – except the accuser…

  47. denk said on August 21st, 2010 at 8:00pm #

    teafoe, mary

    *As reported by Jack Blood, Wikileaks are partners with the Open Society Institute, a George Soros funded operation!*
    tinyurl.com/2b826tc

    *It is also pointed out that on Wikileaks advisory board is Ben Laurie, a one-time programmer and Internet security expert for Google, which recently signed a cooperative agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and has been charged by China with being part of a U.S. cyber-espionage campaign against China. Other Wikileaks advisory members are leading Chinese dissidents, including Wan Dan, who won the 1998 National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Democracy Award; Wang Youcai, founder of the Chinese Democracy Party; Xiao Qiang, the director of the China Internet Project at the University of California at Berkeley, member of the advisory board of the International Campaign for Tibet, and commentator on the George Soros-affiliated Radio Free Asia; and Tibetan exile and activist Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang*
    tinyurl.com/247njkv

    if the above are accurate then i need no further proof
    soros should’ve been a dead give away, never mind the other ned sponsored individuals.

  48. shabnam said on August 21st, 2010 at 8:28pm #

    Wikileaks are partners with the Open Society Institute, a George Soros funded operation!*

    Great News. Thank you denk. Soros has close relations with US government and his role in ‘color revolution’ in many countries has been reported. Please read articles by Michael James Barker in this regards

    Soros has ‘Open Society’ project in Iran and many Iranians including Azar Nafisi (Reading Lolita in Tehran) and Payam Akhavan, invovled with zionist organization shuch as “Save Darfur” against Al Bashir to partition Sudan are involved in Freedom House where is under the name ‘Gozar’
    His daughter is deeply involved in ‘Tibet’.
    in Persian.

  49. teafoe2 said on August 21st, 2010 at 8:46pm #

    What’s wrong with exercising your own judgment?

    Xam here can’t tell the difference between blaming Zionists for the crimes they’re guilty of, and blaming Muslims for being Muslims. Since Xam does not believe Capitalism exists, information about the role Zionism currently plays in US/Izzy capitalist empire apparently seems to him irrelevant.

    So it seems not to matter to Xam that Chomsky and followers work overtime to divert attention from the ZPC connection.

    If Xam thinks Deadbeat’s information is incorrect, why doesn’t he offer his better information in rebuttal? His criticisms are all about DB’s style, not about the facts.

    Xam accuses DB of “becoming judge & jury in McCarthyite style”. But DB is not a US senator; he has no State Apparatus or instruments of coercion at his command. All he does is express an opinion.

    What is so criminal about being suspicious? Are we supposed to assume that “acclaimed journalists” are never wrong?

    I’ve seen a lot of Pilger’s work that seemed to me worthy of respect. However, the list of “truthtellers” he offered in that excerpt is certainly a bunch of questionable choices. Most he named are Zionists of one kind or another. I don’t question the inclusion of Tanya Reinhart, and I’m not acquainted with the work of Avi Schlaim, but I do know something about the rest. I could see including a couple of them, but the list as a whole is a roster of Soft Zionists.

    Why didn’t Pilger mention Israel Shahak? Elmer Berger? Ibrahim Abu-Lughod? Daoud Kuttab? Louise Cainkar? Is it because his editors only allow Jews to comment on ME issues?

    Clearly, Pilger tailored that particular piece to the prejudices of the MSM-addicted public. Which may be a smart tactical move, or it may be an indication of Pilger’s own limited understanding. Either way, we who know better have a right, nay a duty, to question what he wrote.

    Since I’m on the subject, here’s my take on Xam:

    Here is a guy who has a solid eighth grade education. He can read and write English, more or less; he has a fairly extensive vocabulary but problems with spelling and grammar.

    He reads well enough to have worked his way through a number of books which required a better vocabulary than it takes to read Time magazine. He was particularly impressed by Henry George so read certain of George’s tracts over an over until he could recite certain passages at will.

    Armed with that, plus the ability to recite the names and theses associated with several popular “eco-theorists”, he found himself being fussed over by others in his social circle, treated as a person possessing superior knowledge.

    So he had a good run for quite a while, basking in the admiration of his friends/neighbors/fellow refugees from surburbia. Unfortunately he really never acquired enough understanding of the world to be accepted in a wider arena as an “authority”. So he’s been taking a lot of shots to the old Ego.

    So he thrashes around, castigating myself, DB, hayate and others as “McCarthyites” because we point out the feet of clay clearly visible below Chomsky’s Nobel robes.

    If he occasionally says something right, it’s an accident similar to the million chimpanzees who typed for so long they by the law of averages eventually typed out the complete Torah plus the Book of Mormon:)

    The unfortunate fact is, Xam is just not very bright. Any drawing of distinctions which goes beyond the kind presented by Amy Goodman or The Nation goes right past him.

    “How dare you criticize Chomsky, Finkelstein, Goodman? Listen you fool, these people are Celebrities!”

  50. denk said on August 21st, 2010 at 9:32pm #

    shabnam

    like u say,

    soros needs no introduction here
    tinyurl.com/364ea4

    so is cia, er, i mean ned
    tinyurl.com/3p5nlj

    if these two are on board, its as good as the health hazard warning on cigaretts packing , “stay away”

    signing off for now

  51. teafoe2 said on August 22nd, 2010 at 11:03am #

    trying to read the Wikileaks “afghan diaries”, it turns out I’d need to buy WinZip or another For Profit program to open what Assange and Co have posted on the Wikileaks site.

    if anybody knows a way to access the stuff for free, I’d appreciate directions to it? Thanks:)

  52. Deadbeat said on August 22nd, 2010 at 12:20pm #

    T42, you can try the free and very good PeaZip program. PeaZip can expand a lot of different compressed file formats. You can find it on sourceforge.net.

  53. Deadbeat said on August 22nd, 2010 at 12:51pm #

    Max Shields writes …

    Let me tell you flat out Deadbeat. You come across here like some of the right-wingers I come across…only instead of blaming Muslims, you blame Zionists.

    I remember when Ron Jacobs used that tactic in a heated discussion here on DV about three years ago and I readily rebutted that remark. Actually the word Mr. Jacobs used was “neo-nazi”. The issue is Max, I have no tolerance for racism and detest double-standards.

    Racism is not just centralized to the Israel/Palestine issue. Racism is pervasive in the United States. And the most insidious form of racism that goes unchallenged in the U.S. is called Zionism. I also see how White Supremacy racism is being used by Zionist to hide their own ideologically racist goals. Unfortunately Max the so-called “Left” are aiding and abetting the expansion of Zionist goal by ignoring its power and influence.

    Unlike you Max, I’ve called out the Left for its failure to adhere its principles. Those same principles that the Left is willing to judge the Tea Party seem not to apply to itself. Why not? That’s the question I’m willing to ask. It’s the answer to that question that upset you the most Max.

    Those that are “blaming Muslim” Max are Zionists and have been doing so for over 40 years. I grew up hearing Zionist Jews labeling Palestinians are “terrorists” while Blacks were being labeled as “lazy”. White Supremacy/Zionism it’s all the same only that Jews have used their power to make sure the light is not shown on Zionism.

    Sorry Max but that’s the truth and your role here is to deny the truth. The question is why? Perhaps one day we’ll have the answer to that question.

  54. Don Hawkins said on August 22nd, 2010 at 2:15pm #

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/slideshow/ALeqM5iNLTahM5QJw8Ts0SpTgWLjXwN7gAD9HON6000?index=4&ned=us

    NEW YORK — The proposed mosque near ground zero drew hundreds of fever-pitch demonstrators Sunday, with opponents carrying signs associating Islam with blood, supporters shouting, “Say no to racist fear!” and American flags waving on both sides.

    Police separated the two groups but there were some nose-to-nose confrontations, including a man and a woman screaming at each other across a barricade under a steady rain.

    Opponents of the plan to build a $100 million, 13-story Islamic center and mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site appeared to outnumber supporters. Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” blared over loudspeakers as mosque opponents chanted, “No mosque, no way!” AP

    Bruce Springsteen’s “Born in the USA” blared over loudspeakers you know am starting to think Fox New’s is not as fair and balanced as they say. I think I saw one sign today drill baby drill no new tax’s give us back our health care. Am thinking first become a Canadian citizen then off to Iceland much rather deal with a volcano then these head games I know no super centers or reverse mortgages, fast food just have to deal with it. After seeing this today I read a little on the dark ages then the age of enlightenment and in the age of nut’s only the mad are sane. I see Iran now has a unmanned bomber I think we call them drones or is that different:;