Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Wikileaks.gov?

by ormondotvos Mon Nov 29th, 2010 at 08:40:01 PM EST

UPDATE: A friend suggested that perhaps Wikileaks is being fed by Obama as an end-run around the financial-military-industrial complex, especially since the heavy rumors that Bank of America is the next target. In a strange way, I resonate to this. Perhaps I'm naturally cynical and suspicious, but I've been really impressed by Obama's raw intelligence. I'm one of those people talking about the need for "11-dimensional chess" to solve the horrible Medusan tangle left by eight years of W and eight years of Senor Triangulus. (Remember Hillary's Health Horror?) It's a possibility, tripping up the oligarchy by using secrecy and manipulation against them. Such a petard! <<<<>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, and being a contrarian, I googled wikileaks.gov.

Apparently it hasn't occurred to anyone that the secrecy behind wikileaks would be exactly what is needed for a false flag operation, and Julian Assange a paid actor.

Even if it started as an honest attempt to show up secrecy, so many former Wikileaks workers have jumped ship that a completely new direction might have been taken.

It's also possible, and looking probable that the low level Army private was used as a scapegoat. Perhaps this is all a battle for turf among espionage agencies in the US government. Nothing significant has actually been released.


Display:
Read Sunday's open thread. Granted, nothing about false flag events, but some speculation about this whole brouhaha.
by lychee on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 03:28:50 AM EST
I thought Iran's spin on the leaked State Department documents was interesting. I wondering about the selectivity of the documents leaked by WikiLeaks. I would have expected more communiques documenting the lies that led the U.S. into war with Iraq, for example. But, have any materialized?

From the first pass of the documents, it really seemed to be a lot of cheerleading for a war with Iran though. So it's no wonder, as the NYT headline put it: Iran Calls Leaked Documents a U.S. Plot.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismissed the documents as American psychological warfare that would not affect his country's relations with other nations...

"Some part of the American government produced these documents," he said. "We don't think this information was leaked. We think it was organized to be released on a regular basis and they are pursuing political goals."

And you know, the selectivity and war cheerleading could make a person outside of America's ruling elite pause and say hrmmm just as you have done.

by Magnifico on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 04:08:56 AM EST
Ahmadinejad isn't very convincing. The documents prove nothing about Iran, only that the U.S. thinks that they are a threat. But we knew that before the leak, so the leak shouldn't convince anyone who didn't believe it before.

If the leak had contained documents from Iran itself, that would have been another matter. But for that, Wikileaks would need people who could read Farsi. They would also need to have advertised that they had such people, in order to encourage leaks.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 04:19:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The documents aren't trying to prove anything about Iran. Rather, what the documents claim is that many of Iran's neighbors want the U.S. to go to war with Iran over their nuclear program. It's war cheerleading.
by Magnifico on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 11:46:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It wouldn't be if people gave the context that those countries would only stand to gain getting the US to engage with a big strong neighbour, one feared by these leaders of Sunni-majority countries with Shi'a minorities they repress.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 01:54:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Here are a couple of typical reports from the more "liberal" news organizations in the U.S.

New York Times, Around the World, Distress Over Iran.

His plea was shared by many of America's Arab allies, including the powerful King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who according to another cable repeatedly implored Washington to "cut off the head of the snake" while there was still time.

Fifteen paragraphs later:

To some extent, this Arab obsession with Iran was rooted in the uneasy sectarian division of the Muslim world, between the Shiites who rule Iran, and the Sunnis, who dominate most of the region. Those strains had been drawn tauter with the invasion of Iraq, which effectively transferred control of the government there from Sunni to Shiite leaders, many close to Iran.

So one paragraph of context out of 70 paragraphs saying America really needs to do something about Iran's nuclear program.

NPR, Leaks Reveal Arab World's Concerns About Iran. Note how the guest (Goldberg) mentions the Sunni-Shi'ite divide, but yet that is not pursued by the host (Siegel)?

Mr. GOLDBERG: Right. No. This is a very interesting moment because the issue has been framed by many people as a kind of a binary: Israel and Iran. One wants nuclear weapons; one wants to prevent the other one from getting nuclear weapons. But now we see really, fully, the masks are off.

The Arab world, and really most moderate Arab regimes, live in the same sort of existential fear that Israel does of this Iranian program. And it reminds us that the Jewish-Arab - the Jewish-Arab dispute has been going on for 100 years, but the Shiite-Sunni split and the Persian-Arab split, they've been going on for 1,000.

I mean, this is a deep, deep, deep issue that's just now really surfaced because of these leaks.

SIEGEL: There's an irony here, which is the State Department is furious that their confidential cable, that is cables based on confidential conversations, have been made public. And yet we read in one of the cables the anxiety at State that Arab leaders won't say publicly what it is that they're saying privately about Iran.

Mr. GOLDBERG: Right, well, that's not a new aspect of life in the Middle East. Everything is a double game, as you know. And this is the problem, and American policymakers know that this is a problem. The Arab leaders have been lobbying pretty insistently for the last couple years, or even before a couple of years, in the Bush administration, too, for America to take some sort of dramatic action against Iran.

The Americans, and certainly the Israelis, see that and say, well, that's great, but when it comes time to vote to condemn this action in the U.N., where are you going to be?

So the Arab countries would like America, or even Israel at this point, to deal with their mess. But there's no guarantee that the Arab states would do anything to help America.

Most Americans don't do context and the American media certain doesn't hit the public over the head with it.

by Magnifico on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 02:21:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But the fact that the Sunni Arab leaders have not made their attacks on Iran public suggests that maybe right now it isn't as importanat an issue to the general Arab public, compared to other issues, as they suggest? Jeffrey Goldberg is not an "objective" journalist, and has goals of his own, which probably includes encouraging the Sunni-Shiite and Arab-Persian split.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 03:00:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't disagree.

As you first wrote, "the documents prove nothing about Iran". Again, I agree the leaks weren't about Iran. They are about beating the drums of war with Iran.

Dodo suggested the drumbeats would not sound so loud if context was provided. But, I think when the American establishment is busy selling a war with Iran to the American public, then context is either non-existent or deeply discounted, and objectivity is not important. And since when has facts been part of Americans' decision to go to war? Certainly they played little or no part with the decision to invade Iraq or even Afghanistan. This is about ginning up emotion and lining up excuses.

That these nations haven't said anything against Iran publicly fits within the narrative. If the facts supported a war with Iran, then the war would sell itself.

For the most part, I think the American news coverage of the leaked U.S. diplomatic posts regarding Iran can be generally characterized as 'see everyone thinks Iran is a problem and have been secretly okay with the U.S. or Israel attacking them'. The implied suggestion is then those in the ruling class who may have been questioning the wisdom or legality of such a war, should cease their objections and the general public should support the start of such a war.

by Magnifico on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 04:05:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They are about beating the drums of war with Iran.

This is some serious pattern fitting. There is nothing in there that is going to sell a war with Iran to the American public. If it were a false flag operation, it's a hilariously poor PR / propaganda campaign. I mean, given the level of nationalism and exceptionalism in this country, the fact that other countries want the US to go to war with Iran is very much a strike against said war, not a selling point.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 05:23:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not as though the Saudis don't have an interest: a US/Israeli attack on Iran would be worth gazillions to them.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 07:55:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If they are really concerned, that will manifest as a big drop in oil prices associated with the onset of such an attack.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Dec 6th, 2010 at 11:19:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Only if they are physically capable of increasing production.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Dec 7th, 2010 at 01:05:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is capable of selling oil at below market price to select customers for political reasons, or of just giving oil to the US military, as during GHW Bush's Operation Desert Storm, if it sees vital royal interests being at stake.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Dec 7th, 2010 at 01:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but that won't create a big drop in oil prices for anybody outside the military.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Dec 7th, 2010 at 10:51:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
European Tribune - Comments - Wikileaks.gov?
Apparently it hasn't occurred to anyone that the secrecy behind wikileaks would be exactly what is needed for a false flag operation, and Julian Assange a paid actor.

Actually I saw claims to that effect in august. But then again, maybe that rumour was a false flag operation. Or maybe this comment is.

Anything is possible, but I think it is unlikely, as these documents do nothing to help the US, and it is not the US governments style to dump lots of information and let others pick and choose. Rather the style has been to have very controlled releases of actual information and lots and lots of spin around it.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 06:25:36 AM EST
I don't think  he's saying that "the government" did this.  He is saying that this man did it. (Which is exactly what they would want you to think, ... and so on.)
by santiago on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 10:45:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you go down this rabbit hole you either come out as a conspiracy theorist or acknowledge that we need broad levels of transparency in government and the corporate world.

Even if it started as an honest attempt to show up secrecy, so many former Wikileaks workers have jumped ship that a completely new direction might have been taken.

It's also possible, and looking probable that the low level Army private was used as a scapegoat. Perhaps this is all a battle for turf among espionage agencies in the US government.

I have no idea, but if you're exposing money and power it is tough to not become about money and power yourself. When they were new, though, I thought their organization made sense given the technology of the day - they were exploiting data from private networks within which there was fairly broad access internally, and there's a very simple outward vector there through whistle-blowers and disgruntled employees. Wikileaks then took that data and through what was effectively a marketing department attempted to expose a broad section of the public to said data.

If, apparently, 3 million military personnel had access to this data, and it is deemed damaging by the government, then this is all to me no more than a demonstration of (very common) non-existent network security on the social side.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 04:12:28 PM EST
It also means that it was only judged "damaging" by the government if released to the public. Because with three million potential sources, any halfway serious intelligence agency would have to be blind, dumb and deaf-mute to not already have three or four different people with access to those cables.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 04:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My impression of government secrets is that the primary people that they do not wish to know them is their own population.

aspiring to genteel poverty

by edwin (eeeeeeee222222rrrrreeeeeaaaaadddddd@@@@yyyyaaaaaaa) on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 04:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I used to be paid to read tons of this stuff and though I haven't read a single sentence of the "wiki released" documents (and have no interest in doing so), outside what I've inadvertently heard during newscasts, I'm fairly certain most of the news surrounding the "leaks" is way overblown. Why, because it consists mostly of common (very common) diplomatic background noise selectively reported. Pay me, maybe then I'll give it some attention, otherwise don't wake me up again.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Tue Nov 30th, 2010 at 11:49:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries

Ulster says NO!

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 17
43 comments

Trump's Presidency Transfixed

by ARGeezer - Oct 17
14 comments

Spain is not a democracy

by IdiotSavant - Oct 14
10 comments

Does anyone care?

by Frank Schnittger - Oct 10
71 comments