Collateral Damage: WikiLeaks In The Crosshairs

The horrific killing of six people in Arizona, and the wounding of a dozen more, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, generated a wave of discussion on the impact of violent political rhetoric. A leading article in The Times commented:

American politics has a strain of mean-spiritedness that, when it connects to disturbed individuals, can have terrible consequences.

True enough, although Britain certainly has its own “strain of mean-spiritedness”. It is possible to disagree with others “in a reasonable way”, The Times observed, without giving “unintended succour to those on the fringes who harbour extreme views and even worse methods”. ((Leading article, ‘A Mean Spirit,’ The Times, January 10, 2011))

In August 2002, Times journalist Michael Gove – variously, the paper’s comment, news, Saturday and assistant editor – wrote:

We have no alternative but to launch a pre-emptive war against Iraq to prevent Saddam completing his drive to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Massive military force must be deployed to remove Saddam’s regime. ((Gove, ‘We need Bush and not Saddam calling the shots,’ The Times, August 28, 2002 ))

Gove suffered no ill effects from this expression of “extreme views and even worse methods” – he is now Secretary of State for Education.

In January 2003, also gunning for war, David Aaronovitch wrote in the Guardian:

If I were an Iraqi, living under probably the most violent and repressive regime in the world, I would desire Saddam’s demise more than anything else. Or do we suppose that some nations and races cannot somehow cope with freedom?

Again, extremism was given no “unintended succour” – later that year, the judges of the 2003 What the Papers Say awards made Aaronovitch columnist of the year, commenting:

At a time when most left-leaning commentators were opposing the war in Iraq, he took a brave and consistent stand, presenting the case for action in the most coherent and persuasive manner.

Speech that incites violence against individuals at home is unacceptable. Speech that incites mass death and destruction against entire nations is met with indifference, and/or high office and awards!

In Mediaspeak, the word ‘violence’ actually refers to crimes committed by the ‘bad guys’ against the ‘good guys’, ‘us’. ‘We’ do not commit violence, ‘we’ deploy ‘assets’ to ‘neutralise’ ‘targets’. ‘We’ ‘intervene’ to bring ‘security’ and ‘humanitarian relief’.

Because ‘we’ don’t commit violence, it is fine for ‘us’ to non-violently kill ‘our’ enemies. Thus, columnist, Jeffrey T Kuhner, wrote in the Washington Times last month:

We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him.

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, pleaded:

Why can’t we act forcefully against WikiLeaks? Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are? Why can’t we disrupt and destroy WikiLeaks in both cyberspace and physical space, to the extent possible?

The net hosts numerous articles with titles like ‘5 Reasons The CIA Should Have Already Killed Julian Assange.’

On the BBC website, Matt Frei praised Barack Obama’s mollifying response to the Arizona massacre:

The president kept it personal and poignant. He reined in the attack dogs on all sides and called for a more civil, gentle tone. The tragedy has allowed him to play the role of consoler-in-chief with conviction.

Perhaps not on all sides. The “consoler-in-chief” had nothing to say about the crosshairs hovering over Julian Assange.

Of Wikiblokesphere And Lying Feminist Slags

Responding to the killings in the Independent, Joan Smith lamented the state of political debate, recalling “a concept I’m very keen on but haven’t heard much in recent years: civility”. The abuse is rampant:

Among the online-abuse community, it’s beyond question that Julian Assange’s accusers are lying feminist slags.

There was precious little civility in this ugly distortion. If a minority of bigots do perceive Assange’s accusers this way, they have not been contributing to the rational, awesomely well-informed discussions we have seen.

John Pilger has commented on the playing of what might be called ‘the feminist card’ in the WikiLeaks debate. The gambit has form. In December 2007, we found that, over the previous 12 years, the terms ‘Taliban’ and ‘women’s rights’ had been mentioned in 56 Guardian articles. Of these, 36 had appeared after the September 11, 2001 attacks. As Pilger noted last month in the New Statesman:

The invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 was supported by leading feminists, especially in the US, where Hillary Clinton and other false tribunes of feminism made the Taliban’s treatment of Afghan women the rationale for attacking a stricken country and causing the deaths of at least 20,000 people while giving the Taliban new life.

Something similar is happening now, Pilger writes, “as a group of media feminists joins the assault on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks… From the Times to the New Statesman, apparent feminist credence is given to the chaotic, incompetent and contradictory accusations against Assange in Sweden”.

Some of the worst examples have appeared in the Guardian, one of WikiLeaks’ “media partners”. Libby Brooks identifies an “unlikely alliance between leftwingers and the misogynists of the Wikiblokesphere,” which has seen them “indulge in the basest slut-shaming and misogyny”.

Again, if this is true somewhere, it is not true of serious, left online debate, where words like “slut” are simply abhorred. In a similarly one-sided Guardian report, Amelia Gentleman quoted Swedish tabloid journalist Oisin Cantwell, who argued, quite outrageously, that the “celebrity support for Assange was similar to the support offered by Hollywood stars to Roman Polanski when he was arrested last year, accused of raping a 13-year-old…”

Nick Davies, the leading Guardian reporter who originally organised the Guardian-WikiLeaks partnership with Assange, before the two sides fell out, wrote a piece titled: ’10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange.’

This included salacious tidbits such as:

Another friend told police that during the evening Miss A told her she had had ‘the worst sex ever’ with Assange: ‘Not only had it been the world’s worst screw, it had also been violent’.


Police spoke to Miss W’s ex-boyfriend, who told them that in two and a half years they had never had sex without a condom because it was ‘unthinkable’ for her.

Bianca Jagger noted in Huffington Post that Davies had published “selective passages from the Swedish police report, whilst omitting exculpatory evidence contained in the document”.

Assange was, Jagger wrote, being “subjected to a ‘trial by newspapers,’ in an effort to discredit him”.

Assange’s former barrister James Catlin commented:

The complete absence of due process is the story and Davies ignores it. Why does due process matter? Because the massive powers of two arms of government are being brought to bear against the individual whose liberty and reputation are at stake.

With “media partners” like these, WikiLeaks hardly needs enemies.

Blood On The Guardian’s Hands?

Worse was to come from the Guardian. On December 27, Africa correspondent David Smith reported:

Zimbabwe is to investigate bringing treason charges against the prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, and other individuals over confidential talks with US diplomats revealed by WikiLeaks.

Treason charges could mean the death penalty, which, one would guess from this article, could mean blood on WikiLeaks’ hands.

One week later, on January 3, James Richardson, an “account services director for Hynes Communications”, wrote an opinion piece in the Guardian claiming: “now, with the recent release of sensitive diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks may have committed its own collateral murder, upending the precarious balance of power in a fragile African state and signing the death warrant of its pro-western premier…”

WikiLeaks, Richardson argued, should just shut up:

Before more political carnage is wrought and more blood spilled – in Africa and elsewhere, with special concern for those US-sympathising Afghans fingered in its last war document dump – WikiLeaks ought to leave international relations to those who understand it – at least to those who understand the value of a life.

Political analyst Glenn Greenwald commented on Salon:

There was just one small problem with all of this: it was totally false. It wasn’t WikiLeaks which chose that cable to be placed into the public domain, nor was it WikiLeaks which first published it. It was The Guardian that did that.

In fact the Guardian decided to publish the cable about Tsvangirai, not WikiLeaks, which only published the leak after the Guardian had done so.

The reaction in the US press was predictable enough. An article in the Wall Street Journal was titled, ‘Julian Assange’s reckless behavior could cost Zimbabwe’s leading democrat his life.’ Who was to blame? “Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.” A piece in the Atlantic observed: “WikiLeaks released [this cable] to the world” and so “provided a tyrant with the ammunition to wound, and perhaps kill, any chance for multiparty democracy”. ((Ibid))

Responding to criticism, the Guardian amended Richardson’s opinion piece, noting:

This article was amended on 11 January 2011 to clarify the fact that the 2009 cable referred to in this article was placed in the public domain by the Guardian, and not as originally implied by WikiLeaks.

The Guardian’s deputy editor, Ian Katz, worked hard to explain why David Smith had reported that WikiLeaks, rather than the Guardian, had published the Tsvangirai cable. Katz wrote: “it would be fair to describe us as joint publishers of any cables we have selected, with joint responsibility for any consequences of their release”. Using the WikiLeaks name was “a piece of widely understood journalistic shorthand. The material was routinely referred to as a ‘WikiLeaks revelation'”.

If the term “WikiLeaks revelation” is “shorthand” that is “widely understood” to refer to the Guardian’s status as joint publishers with WikiLeaks, why did David Smith not turn to his own editor for comment on the Guardian’s shared responsibility in the news piece reporting that Morgan Tsvangirai faced a treason inquiry? Has any Guardian journalist ever turned to the Guardian editor for comment on allegations that the Guardian-WikiLeaks partnership had endangered life? We asked Ian Katz on Twitter but he failed to reply. It seems clear that the Guardian has not rushed to advertise its shared responsibility – we suspect it will be news to many people.

The crucial point, in light of the Guardian’s amendments, is that mainstream media outlets have shown flat zero interest in accusing the Guardian of having blood on its hands for publishing the Tsvangirai cable. But why? There is only one explanation: the earlier media outrage was motivated, not by a desire to protect life in Zimbabwe, but by a desire to demonise and destroy Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

A related propaganda theme is that WikiLeaks has recklessly “dumped” a “flood” of diplomatic cables on the web, so endangering lives. Arch-war monger John Bolton wrote in the Guardian:

WikiLeaks has yet again flooded the internet with thousands of classified American documents, this time state department cables” which was the “third document dump.

The Daily Mail reported: “Then this week he [Assange] disclosed around 250,000 cables from U.S. embassies, many containing sensitive information.”

This, also, is nonsense. In reality, WikiLeaks has, so far, slowly and carefully released only about 2,000 documents in close cooperation with its media partners.

Greenwald explains the rationale behind the selective outrage and false claims:

To justify this assault, the U.S. Government needs to claim that WikiLeaks is somehow distinct from what other press outlets do. So it invents outright falsehoods to do so: unlike newspapers, WikiLeaks indiscriminately dumps diplomatic cables without editorial judgment; unlike newspapers, they refuse to be transparent about their methods (nobody is less transparent about what they do than large newspapers); and now, WikiLeaks endangers people’s lives by recklessly publishing a cable which leaves democratic leaders in Zimbabwe vulnerable to attack, even though it wasn’t published by them at all, but by The Guardian.”

Once again, the mainstream media has distorted and deceived to manufacture, isolate and target a ‘threat’ for destruction. Certainly WikiLeaks is embarrassing the powers that be much more effectively than mainstream journalism. But mainstream outlets also publish government leaks, including ‘Top Secret’ information, which the diplomatic cables are not. Assange is a journalist and he is engaging in journalistic activity. The “collateral damage” of his destruction might well involve the freedoms enjoyed by the very journalists currently seeking that outcome.

Media Lens is a UK-based media watchdog group headed by David Edwards and David Cromwell. The most recent Media Lens book, Propaganda Blitz by David Edwards and David Cromwell, was published in 2018 by Pluto Press. Read other articles by Media Lens, or visit Media Lens's website.

18 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on January 21st, 2011 at 8:02am #

    i don’t remember where i posted the following: if one views editors-columnists as part of all governances– and in u.s., a fortiori so, then, we can expect their cry for doing ‘justice’ for u.s. system of rule.

    system must be systemicly defended; no matter what the facts r– or even if an u.s. prez wld endanger or only seem to endager-weaken it.

    i also evaluate that columnists-editors-and owners of media is more important structural member of u.s., than its legislative branches or its spy agencies or to be accurate, its terror orgs.

    u.s. or any system of rule may be also called and deemed a structure. its studs can be seen with a naked eye– no schooling or brains required– all one needs is one good eye!
    generally, a system of rule consists of army, spy agency, parliaments, judiciary, schooling, media.
    which in u.s. r controlled by a minority of people. schooling in such a system of rule sows nescience; other branches wage poverty, dependency-independency, etc.

    judiciary role is to wage injustice. once u’v waged poverty-nescience, u can rule even with abject arrogance, insults, impunity, cruelty, etc.

    nevertheless, due to conditioning– as in conditioning of pavlov’s dog– of americans over centuries, 99% approbate this; still, others wld defend this with own life or kill other who’d dare protest or oppose u.s. rule. tnx

  2. halifax said on January 21st, 2011 at 9:03am #

    Fellow readers, with respect–
    I have been following Dissident Voice for several months now, and as of yesterday, I have begun to participate in “discussion”. It has taken quite a while for me to figure out how I can be a productive contributor to discussions and I think I have–or at least I am trying out–an “angle”. I am a neuroscientist, at home with my adopted son, doing independent research on the evolution of consciousness. I was a practicing psychiatrist until late 2009. Activism has been part of my life since I was about six years old when I organized all the kids in my school to join hands at recess and surround the school, just for the thrill of feeling that we, the kids, could “contain” the school. My activist identity has changed or should I say evolved over the years. Today, at nearly 56 years of age, I am an activist primarily as a provider of information concerning how the brain works as I view this knowledge as vitally important to all progressive struggles in the application of state of the art neuroscience to our personal and collective consciousness evolutionary processes. My particular bias in the area of neuroscience is that I view the brain (actually the entire system to the sub-cellular level) as an information-rich, nonlinear, complex, chaotic, adaptive system. My formulations are based on chaos/complexity theory; quantum mechanics; relativity theory and superstring theory as well as a respectful first nod to both ancient and modern poets, mystics and sages who clearly “saw” and “see” the science of complexity in their creative processes of weaving together matter and non-matter.

    My apologies for the rather long intro. Now to this article. Just two points. First, when one works a lot with hypnotic techniques –which, when done right, is the art and science of facilitative language that communicates directly with the “subject’s” own organic intelligence–one comes to realize how we humans swim in a sea of potency of nouns and verbs. Words like”attack”, “crosshairs”, “target” etc. stand out in relief. The context that is created by all the other kind of words–prepositions, adverbs, etc–words that supply nuance; that convey irony and paradox; that qualify a noun or verb just communicated as included or excluded, for example, are not”heard” by the deep parts of the brain where the seeds of new ways of thinking, feeling and behaving are sown. It is kind of like the cartoon that shows the owner talking to her dog about something and all the dog hears is blah blah blad Fido blah blah supper blah blah walk etc. If we want to foster a consciousness within which certain kinds of ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving flourish, we must remove certain words from our metaphoric use of language entirely.

    The second point is that we simply do not substitute a bunch of vague euphemisms or other kinds of “code words” for the words we have decided to no longer use in communicating. This is where it gets really interesting and exciting. The string that hold nouns and verbs together is the string of process. Ours is a nonlinear, complex, chaotic, adaptive process. That is the language of consciousness evolution; the language of “waking up” and “growing up” into mature, fully self-aware adults who “know” beyond a shadow of a doubt (no pun intended, Dr. Jung) that anything and everything that they think, feel and do has do with their own resolved and/or unresolved “stuff” and that there is no “other”. This language is not abstract even though in its fundamentality, it is the language of Mystery. It is certainly metaphoric when it weaves itself through the dynamism of the vigorous growth of all living things; and it can be very clever, techno-savvy language when the metaphors are about construction and deconstruction brought together in creative harmonization. Whatever the language used, it must express accurately and precisely state of the art and science concerning our conception of essence (the suchness of things, ideas, actions); the timing; and the manifestation (the expression of essence) in a way in which this fundamental triad, when it comes together in a singularly individualized creative act, reflects the resonant evolutionary dynamism of the message (Flow). As McLuhan said, the medium is the message and, in my humble opinion, Flow is the medium.
    I hope this has been in some way or another a useful contribution to the discussion. I appreciate it is all rather ethereal–I will, in future, I am quite sure, offer more substantive contributions that are specific and detailed and very, very practical as my knowledge is, most importantly, based on what I have learned from the children, women, men (and animals!) of both my personal and professional life who, as Neruda said it, “have taught me the infinite.” Today, this is where my current muse led me and so I followed, as bidden, in Flow’s wake.

  3. MichaelKenny said on January 21st, 2011 at 9:22am #

    Since Mr Media and Mr Lens get so upset about a lack of “balance” in the British media, let me draw attention to a report currently on the BBC website. French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie is in Israel and met the father of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit (who has French nationality). Shalit Snr then told reporters: “Holding a hostage without allowing him to meet representatives of the Red Cross is a war crime.” Some media outlets, including Israeli radio, then attributed the comment to MAM, which led to her car being attacked in Gaza (which suggests a well-planned Israeli black op). MAM’s comment on the attack suggested that she suspected something of that sort (people with “other intentions”). While in Gaza, though, MAM issued “an impassioned call” for an end to Israel’s blockade (which suggests that the black op blew up in the Israelis’ faces!). Maybe the BBC is not so unbalanced after all!

  4. 3bancan said on January 21st, 2011 at 11:05am #

    MichaelKenny said on January 21st, 2011 at 9:22am
    MK lives in a strange world: all his knowledge of the world seems to be Israel’s incessant shooting itself in the foot (ie, the Israelis NEVER shoot other people/Palestinians), Israel’s total control of the US but absolutely no knowledge of the zionazification of other countries, especially Europe (especially the UK, the most zionazified European country).

    As to his “Maybe the BBC is not so unbalanced after all!”, one should refer to
    []. Of course – as expected – Melanie and MK totally agree on “the fact” that there is NO hasbara, especially not in the UK, especiallly not on the BBC…
    A good description of today’s journalism/journalists can be read here:


  5. bozh said on January 21st, 2011 at 11:54am #

    i came to a tentative conclusion that all psychiatry-sociology-political science may be called “religion”. a new religion, tho, but nevertheless cld also be called sciences along with all other ‘religions’.

    viewed as such, they cld be evaluated for, above else, usefulness. alas, we’v had ‘religions’ for possibly 8k yrs and psychiatry for one c., but i don’t find it benefitted us in any way.

    these soul sciences have even devised new tortures. at the same time, they r either silent about killing ‘aliens’ or on occasion even support such behavior.

    my point is this: we were always ok; we’r ok now; we will always be ok.
    all we need to do is to hang every last priest, imam, rabbi, psychiatrist, inventor, job ‘giver’, supremacist, and, presto, we’d solve all the problems;
    the ones we cldn’t, we’d just say: OK, sufficient onto day is rigor thereof.

    recall, say, hopi, hayda societal and governmental structure before priests showed up? and what do we see?
    well, we see no jails, whores, laws, police, army, taxes, politicos, psychiatrists, experts, ‘educators’, marshalls-generals, schools, media, rabbis, imams, etc.
    the ‘poor’, ‘godless’ ‘savages’ had only guidance-tutoring!

    but with peace, caring, sharing of what they had. that’s all, folks! all we need again is guidance-tutoring!
    and only after that we can have all other soul ‘sciences’, but only if we all choose to do that! tnx

  6. stuartbramhall said on January 21st, 2011 at 2:59pm #

    I have to agree with the preceding commenter about psychiatry not being a science. However, as a recently retired psychiatrist with 32 years clinical experience, I see it more as a method of social control than a religion.

    Re: the Wikileaks/Feminism controversy:
    The plot thickens, with growing evidence Assange was set up on the sexual charges (the point Moore, Wolf and Pilger were trying to make to begin with), especially given the CIA connections (not of the women themselves but of the LAW FIRM representing the women – see OpEdNews article at

    In addition the Swedish press is reporting that Karl Rove was involved. I’m sure people remember Karl Rove and all his dirty tricks against Bush’s opponents. I also strongly recommend people read the article translated from the Swedish in OpEdNews at

    In fact, the whole Wikileaks/feminist controversy is starting to smell like classic Cointelpro tactics to me. The use of identity politics to divide the progressive movement dates back to the 1960s civil rights movement. I write about my sad personal experiences with all this in my recent memoir THE MOST REVOLUTIONARY ACT: MEMOIR OF AN AMERICAN REFUGEE ( I currently live in exile in New Zealand

  7. hayate said on January 21st, 2011 at 7:22pm #

    stuartbramhall said on January 21st, 2011 at 2:59pm

    “I have to agree with the preceding commenter about psychiatry not being a science. However, as a recently retired psychiatrist with 32 years clinical experience, I see it more as a method of social control than a religion.”

    I agree with both those conclusion. “Mental disease” is likely a physical problem. About social control, I believe psychiatry is very important to the capitalist oligarchy, especially the zionist portion. It’s extremely important to the israeli guv.

    “Re: the Wikileaks/Feminism controversy:
    The plot thickens, with growing evidence Assange was set up on the sexual charges (the point Moore, Wolf and Pilger were trying to make to begin with), especially given the CIA connections (not of the women themselves but of the LAW FIRM representing the women – see OpEdNews article at”

    Actually the women, as well, are connected to spooks, though the one now in the israel occupied West Bank is likely more intimately connected to israeli security services than american. It’s quite obvious, both american and israel security services are involved and there is enough circumstantial evidence that they are also involved in wikileaks itself in some way. Though WTF is going on behind the scenes between all these players is any one’s guess.

  8. bozh said on January 22nd, 2011 at 8:12am #

    i do not use the label “mental illness”, because the label evokes elementalistic thinking.
    elementalism suggest that an event, say, a personal maladjustment or maladaptation for survival has no connection to a societal structure; particularly, of societies in which meritocracy, lawlessness [or diktat], supremacism appear as its most valuable ‘assets’.

    in fact, no human being can ever adapt to such structures. not even jefferson, nixon, kennedy, obama unless one strikes a deal with, so to speak, god-devil monopoly [or duopoly, for those that like to split one entity in two].

    and thereby remain breathing and become over time mentally utterly sanely unsane or insanely sane!
    as i have said a few times, pavlov’s experiment proves, that a dog or person can be conditioned to behave insanely maladaptively and not see it! tnx

  9. bozh said on January 22nd, 2011 at 8:23am #

    please don’t tnink elementalistically of the word “survival”. think of it as survival-in-an-environment.
    which wld include schooling, information, [ab]use of language, exploitation, ‘religions’, socio-politoco-ecomomic ‘science’ [read please voodoo craft], [ab]use of money, wife beating [causes thereof], warfare-causes for it, personal-ethnic-cultural-cultish-linguistic supremacism, laughter-lack of it, and who knows what other phenomena we cld discover. tnx

  10. mary said on January 22nd, 2011 at 1:08pm #

    Mme Allott referred to by Kenny, is Jewish like Sarko and would like to bomb Iran.
    French Foreign Minister: ‘France to take a strong stance against Iran’
    She spoke at a gathering of European Jewish communal leaders in Paris
    by: Joseph Byron Updated: 13/Dec/2010 18:04

    French Foreign Minister Michele Alliot-Marie (photo)

    PARIS (EJP)—French Foreign and European Affairs Minister Michele Alliot-Marie told a gathering of European Jewish leaders that France “will take a strong stance against Iran.”

    Speaking Sunday night at the end of a conference organized by the European Jewish Congress (EJC) in Paris, she said France “doesn’t accept an Iran that is destabilizing the Middle East and the world.”

    Speaking about Tehran’s nuclear program, she said: “If Iranian leaders do not remove the doubt about their intentions, all economic sanctions will have to be considered.”

    Alliot-Marie was named in November in the wake of a cabinet reshuffle.

    It was her first speech to an international organization since assuming office.

    “We are getting very close to the tipping point where Iran will reach the point of no return regarding nuclear weapons capability,” EJC President Moshe Kantor said at Sunday’s gathering. “France, the EU and the international community have to make every effort to prevent Iran from reaching this point and we will need to see unified, concerted and intensive efforts to achieve this aim vital for international security.”
    About hundred Jewish communal leaders, representing 27 communities, attended the EJC gathering.

    The minister also expressed her belief that European Jewry has enriched the culture of Europe and has helped build its current identity.

    She spoke about the close relationship between the French Republic and the Jews of France and how she hoped it would continue to grow “even stronger.”


    The question is why did Kenny post here about Allott visiting Gaza. It was off topic. The Zionist BBC reported her visit in order to reinforce the image of the Palestinians in Gaza as some wild bunch of lawless people.

    Today in their Radio 4 PM progamme they were trying to put words into the mouth of Catherine Ashton, the EU Foreign Minister, that sanctions against Iran ‘were not working’ and that further ‘action’ would have to be taken. They actually quoted Blair’s words from yesterday. Ashton firmly contradicted the presenter.

    Next they had John Bolton, the US Neocons’ cheerleader, with a call for a war on Iran calling for a pre-emptive strike on their nuclear facilities. Sounds familiar?

    By the way, Bliar used the word IRAN or Iranian over 48 times in his monologue yesterday at the IRAQ Inquiry!!

  11. shabnam said on February 14th, 2011 at 6:10pm #

    A ziofascist, Alan Dershowitz, joins Julian Assange defense team.

    Asked why he got involved in the matter, Dershowitz said he sees important freedoms at stake in the battle and he rejects claims by government official that Assange shouldn’t be considered a journalist.


    Look who is talking. Why don’t you tell the truth that you are helping a mossad agent. Now, it is clear why so many judeofascists supported Assange.

  12. hayate said on February 14th, 2011 at 8:53pm #

    shabnam said on February 14th, 2011 at 6:10pm

    “A ziofascist, Alan Dershowitz, joins Julian Assange defense team….”

    That is interesting. According to that blog entry, dermolickz will be advising Assange’s ami team, and that is according to one of his Brit legal team. That does appear to place the noose around Assange’s neck now. But I’m wondering how savvy Assange is of dermolickz or his imput or knowledge in bringing dermolickz aboad the ami team.

    The reason?

    This recent interview with a French media outlet (I’ll provide the original French quotes and a internet machine trans of the section pertaining to israel-america relations and Wikileaks’ handling of israel related material):

    “C’est vrai que tu crains Israël ?

    Bien entendu.

    Pourtant tu as fait certains choix lorsque tu as décidé de publier les premières informations…

    Nous avons choisi de ne rien publier sur Israël pendant la première semaine, car cela nous aurait causé beaucoup de problèmes. Nous avons donc entamé la publication des fichiers sur d’autres pays. Dès que notre « bateau » avait quitté le port, il n’était pas concevable de le faire changer de cap. Au début nous n’avions pas beaucoup de fichiers sur Israël et nous avons eu peur des attaques en provenance de la côte est des Etats-Unis (c’est sur la côte est que résident les principales organisations juives, NDR). Si nous avions publié des informations sur des pays “sensibles” dès le début, nous aurions subi des attaques pour nous faire dévier de notre trajectoire.

    As-tu plus peur d’Israël ou des Etats-Unis ?

    C’est l’union des deux pays qui m’effraye le plus. A plus forte raison parce qu’ils partagent un certain nombre d’intérêts dans le conflit irakien. Bush a soutenu Israël car il était entouré d’amis à la tête de compagnies pétrolières. Israël, de son côté, a des liens solides avec la côte est des Etats-Unis. Non seulement en raison de la présence de nombreux juifs sur le sol américain, mais également parce que beaucoup de passeports israéliens ont été fournis aux juifs de la côte est afin de renforcer leurs liens avec leur terre d’accueil. La Russie a procédé de la même manière avec l’Ossétie du Sud, en distribuant des passeports à la population locale afin d’encourager la lutte contre le nationalisme géorgien.”


    “That’s true that you fear Israel?


    However you made certain choices when you decided to publish the first information…

    We chose to publish nothing on Israel during the first week, because it would have caused us a lot of problems. We therefore started the publication of files on other countries. As soon as our “boat” had left the harbour, it was not thinkable to make it change of cape. At the beginning we had no files on Israel and we were afraid of attacks from the coast is the United States (it is on the coast is that resident the main jewish organizations, NDR). If we had published information on “sensitive” countries from the beginning, we would have been subjected to attacks to make depart from our trajectory.

    Are you more afraid of Israel or of the United States?

    It is the union of both countries that scares me most. For stronger reason because they share a certain number of interests in Iraqi conflict. Bush supported Israel because he was encircled with friends at the head of oil companies. Israel, for his/her part, has solid links with the coast is the United States. Not only owing to the presence of numerous Jews on the American soil, but also because many Israeli passports were provided the Jews of the coast is to reinforce their links with their earth of reception. Russia went about things in the same way with the Ossetia of the South, by distributing passports in the local population to encourage the conflict against Georgian nationalism.”

    The above from an interview published in 2 parts.

    AgoraVox a rencontré Julian Assange de Wikileaks


    Wikileaks, les médias et Israël : suite de notre rencontre avec Julian Assange


    The main gist of the interview was about nyt and guardian dishonesty, but what Assange said about israel-usa relations (IE: that he considers them effectively one country) surprised me. Given the dermolicker’s fanatical support for israel and its war crimes, and its habit of calling any critical views of israel, and its s.w.a.r.m. of bendoverbois and grrrrls, as anti-semitic, one wonders what the relation could be between Assange and dermolickz. They don’t seem very compatible.

    This raises more questions than it answers. Is Assange naive of dermolickz? Possible, he’s pretty naive about a lot of things, as that interview showed (the parts I didn’t quote). It’s unlikely dermolickz is ignorant of Assange’s views of israeloamerica – it makes it a point to know about these things, as all good lil israeli ziofacsist sayanim do – so is the disgusting subhominid trying to play the role of a daniel sheehan*, or are Assange and the dermolicker running this scam together with full knowledge of each others’ roles? or, is it his lawyer team running a scam on Assange?

  13. hayate said on February 14th, 2011 at 9:02pm #

    Oops, forgot something:

    * daniel sheehan , a famous lawyer from the 70’s and 80’s. Famous for blowing important lawsuits of clients vs “the establishment”. Most notably, he messed up the case against the boy botherers north, secord, et al, back in the 80’s and earlier, buggered the case of Silkwood’s murder. The critter is toxic and saboteur zio-lawyeristic porportions. Classic infiltration by the you know who.

  14. Deadbeat said on February 14th, 2011 at 10:12pm #

    Assange is incorrect about the Bush team. The pseudo-Left hyped Chaney’s association with “big oil” due to his Halliburton ties but they never mention his affiliation to JINSA and the fact that he was a signatory of PNAC. Junior Bush had less ties to oil than his father GHWB. Both Gulf Wars were not about oil. Saddam Hussein reason for invading Kuwait was about oil but not the U.S. The first Gulf War was about cementing NATO’s geo-political positioning over the faltering USSR. The second invasion was clearly for Israel’s benefit. As been reported here by notables like James Petras, the oil companies came out as net losers from these Gulf wars.

    Bush’s primary goal as president was to best his dad and serve two terms. In other words unlike his dad, he was not about to piss off the Zionist community in the U.S. Bush’s decided to embrace them instead which led to his successes.

    The Left for its part debased itself by thwarting the anti-war movement and failing to build a viable 3rd party to challenge the Democrats. What Bush did was to help cement neo-con hegemony of the political system giving Zionists forces two political parties — Democrats and Republicans.

    The irony is that the only viable countervailing force to emerge is the Tea Party who wants to end all foreign aid — including aid to Israel.

    The Left is no where to be seen other than attacking the Tea Party funders like the Koch Brothers while remaining mum about the Democrats who receive half their funding from Zionist interests.

    Israel, for his/her part, has solid links with the coast is the United States. Not only owing to the presence of numerous Jews on the American soil, but also because many Israeli passports were provided the Jews of the coast is to reinforce their links with their earth of reception

    This is very true and why the United States (the Democrats especially) is in the grip of Zionism. Even the far-Left doesn’t want to confront this and only talking about Capitalism hoping that by challenging Capitalism that Zionism will go away — it won’t unless it is confronted directly like the brave people struggle in Egypt are doing.

  15. hayate said on February 14th, 2011 at 11:54pm #


    “Assange is incorrect about the Bush team. The pseudo-Left hyped Chaney’s association with “big oil” due to his Halliburton ties but they never mention his affiliation to JINSA and the fact that he was a signatory of PNAC. Junior Bush had less ties to oil than his father GHWB. Both Gulf Wars were not about oil. Saddam Hussein reason for invading Kuwait was about oil but not the U.S. The first Gulf War was about cementing NATO’s geo-political positioning over the faltering USSR. The second invasion was clearly for Israel’s benefit. As been reported here by notables like James Petras, the oil companies came out as net losers from these Gulf wars.”

    Yeah, that hits one first off – Assange does not appear to be a deep thinker. There are a few other howlers in his responses, including this:

    “Russia went about things in the same way with the Ossetia of the South, by distributing passports in the local population to encourage the conflict against Georgian nationalism.”

    If one has ever delt with engineers/nerds, the first thing noticed is that while these people may be good at their field, they almost completely lack any ability to branch out and look at other fields in an independent, intelligent manner. Outside their chosen fields, they are more or less parrots of what “feels good” to their limited world views, which usually are rightwing (and/or zionist) influenced rubbish.

    Assange strikes me as a typical nerd who stumbled on to a way to make a fortune. The other ex-Wikileaks nerds come across as thieves upset at the division of the loot. I’m not sure whether sayanim or used apolitical car salesmen best describes this whole lot.

  16. hayate said on February 15th, 2011 at 12:06am #

    But irregardless of what may be perceived about Assange’s role as an israeli agent, his now publically stated greater fear of israel more than that of the usa says a lot where the centre of fascist power now is located.

  17. Deadbeat said on February 15th, 2011 at 2:19am #

    hayate writes …

    Assange strikes me as a typical nerd who stumbled on to a way to make a fortune. The other ex-Wikileaks nerds come across as thieves upset at the division of the loot. I’m not sure whether sayanim or used apolitical car salesmen best describes this whole lot.

    A lot of them are into Chomsky worship which should tell you all you need to know. Chomskyism shapes much of their world view and why they believe that the war in the Middle East are “for oil”. But your right about pointing to Assange’s fear of Israel.

  18. Rehmat said on February 15th, 2011 at 5:27am #

    Mr. ‘Israel’ Alan Dershowitz, support for Julian prove Gordon Duff’s theory that Wikileaks, like the US-supported Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri – is an ‘Israeli Project’.