WIKILEAKS SERIES Information
UPDATE: Thursday, December 16, 2010
Until proof has been supplied that Julian Assange is a Zionist agent, the term "alleged" remains in order. Otherwise, we may as well start believing the Zionists that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program and will definitely do a first strike on Israel and without provocation. Let's be consistent in the level of evidence we expect before anyone destroys anyone else.
Gordon Duff published a post: "GORDON DUFF: BUSTED - WIKILEAKS WORKING FOR ISRAEL : Veterans Today"
He said "BUSTED" based upon this article: "WikiLeaks 'struck a deal with Israel' over diplomatic cables leaks : Indybay"
Now, I had seen the IndyBay article before seeing Gordon's, but I raised Gordon first because he appears to be in the vanguard of those pushing the idea that Julian Assange is a witting Mossad operative on some level. Gordon though says, "BUSTED" here but had already written article saying that it is a foregone conclusion that Julian is Mossad. He had already said BUSTED so to speak. I don't want to come across as overly quibbling here; but he didn't have the evidence then, and he still doesn't really have it yet. He says so himself. Read on.
I'm going to deal with things as they appear right out in the open.
The IndyBay article is authored by someone who did not attach his or her name to the posting. LikiWeaks is not the author's legal name or anything remotely close to it. Writing on such an important topic under a handle is dis-impressive. The author would suffer persecution, or would it be that the author would suffer probing questions and have his or her identity and reputation on the line and attached? There are people who might be persecuted, but I don't sense that that's what's going on here.
The article starts out with the following:
A number of commentators, particularly in Turkey and Russia, have been wondering why the hundreds of thousands of American classified documents leaked by the website last month did not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government, like just about every other state referred to in the documents. The answer appears to be a secret deal struck between the WikiLeaks "heart and soul", as Assange humbly described himself once , with Israeli officials, which ensured that all such documents were 'removed' before the rest were made public.
This idea is not correct. A Facebook friend of mine, Rolf Lindgren, quickly supplied the following links on a post by Deborah Langdon:
Not exactly avoiding embarrassing/exposing Israel is Rolf's point. [See below: UPDATE: Thursday, December 16, 2010]
I chimed in there with this:
I'm with Rolf on this one. The government has attacked WikiLeaks and has shut down WikiLeaks' sites. WikiLeaks is very techno-savvy though. It's not completely defenseless, so it pops up again elsewhere. People/hackers supporting WikiLeaks, some 9,000 of them, have been able to clog some sites but aren't yet actually taking them down permanently. Now there are 500+ WikiLeaks mirrors and growing. What is the U.S. supposed to do? It can't surgically take them all down without the full cooperation of the providers. They'll never get that. This is a real war. It will evolve. Then you'll be able to see better what's really going on regarding WikiLeaks even while the whole war will become that much more complicated.
While it's true that those "revelations" don't sink the Israeli ship on their own, they do make Rolf's point that the statement that the cable releases did "not contain anything that may embarrass the Israeli government" is patently false. It is deliberately overstated and therefore misleading.
A less incorrect way to have referred to or questioned the cables in context would have been to say much less was leaked that embarrassed the Israelis relative to leaks concerning the U.S. and/or others and especially the Iranians and Arabs. The reason I phrased it that way, saying "a less incorrect way," is because we are all to understand that the cables that have been released to date are all cables that were available to a Private First Class. They reveal what imperial, boss-pleasing sycophants were writing back and forth in the State Department. Do you remember Richard Clarke explaining how George W. Bush had his people attach a note to a report written by Clarke, which note said, "Wrong answer. Do it again."?
People working for the State Department don't write and submit reports that don't go along with the party line and last long at the State Department.
So, what has been the State Department's position vis-a-vis the Zionists? It has been to appear to the American public once in awhile as trying to take a principled stand, but the actions of the State Department and the Obama administration and administrations before it have shown that caving in is the rule. George H. W. Bush tried not caving in and did so somewhat successfully once. He was a one-term President, even though he was as deep into the deep government as any President has ever been. The Zionists made sure he wasn't re-elected. The Clintons were and are real Zionists, especially Hillary. Bill focused more though on the calculations for how to get into office. George H. W. Bush was never a Zionist. He was not a neocon. His team was not neocon. He lost the Christian-Zionists (there's really no such thing; Christianity is anti-Zionist). His son, George W. Bush, scooped up the Christian-Zionists and rode in on the votes of "conservative Evangelicals" and of course, election fraud and a colluding Supreme Court.
Anyway, I digress. Let me return to the IndyBay article more directly.
There are 8 links provided in that article as footnotes. I visited and read all eight. They do not fully lend themselves to the thesis of the IndyBay article.
The article states: "According to an Arabic investigative journalism website , Assange had received money from semi-official Israeli sources and promised them, in a "secret, written and audio/video-recorded agreement," not to publish any document that may harm Israeli security or diplomatic interests."
The Arabic investigative journalism website page is on Syria Truth (National Council for truth, justice and reconciliation in Syria SYNATIC).
If I'm understanding it correctly, that site says that one of its correspondence in Berlin, Leah Abramowitz, did an email interview with Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who had reportedly been the number two at WikiLeaks. The Syria Truth articles states that Daniel Domscheit-Berg claims that in exchange for money, Julian Assange made a secret agreement with Israelis (Zionists is what you are supposed to conclude or at least suspect) not to disclose any material that would damage Israeli diplomacy or security, specifically that Julian would not release cablegate cables pertaining to the Israeli 2006 War against Lebanon and then Operation Cast Lead against Gaza.
It would be interesting to hear from Julian Assange directly on these allegations. It would also be interesting for some investigative reporter to explain how Domscheit-Berg knew about the contents of this secret agreement with the Zionists, and that if he did, why wasn't that the reason he blasted away at Assange in the online chat. Who else knew of this "secret agreement with the Zionists"? How much money changed hands? Where is the "agreement" now? There is a laundry list of who, what, where, when, why, and how much concerning these allegations.
If they are true, they will be the death knell of Julian Assange's credibility. If they are false, if they cannot be substantiated as characterized, as couched by Syria Truth, if they are simply Daniel Domscheit-Berg's word against Julian Assange's, they constitute, among other things, character assassination, defamation of character, slander, and libel, a conspiracy to deprive Julian of a living, and a conspiracy to destroy the WikiLeaks organization.
There does seem to be circumstantial evidence that might suggest that cables related to the 2006 Israel-Lebanese War have been withheld, but there are other possible explanations. Daniel, according to Syria Truth, says that the War is covered in the cables. However, only the tip of the iceberg of those cables has been released. Can Daniel know that Julian has intentions never to release them? Remember, from a reading of Daniel's complaint, one of Daniel's chief complaints was WikiLeaks not being allowed to spend enough time redacting names to protect informants, etc.
Now here's Daniel suggesting, at least as characterized by IndyBay and Syria Truth (whoever they are), that Julian did a bad thing accepting money from Israelis (we don't know who they are) with the promise not to harm diplomacy or security. How were diplomacy and security defined? Redacting informant names so that those working as collaborators with the Empire against the indigenous fighters against the illegal occupation of their homelands are not killed is certainly also about not overly harming U.S. and/or Israeli diplomacy and/or security on some level.
At this point, one cannot be sure who gave money and exactly what assurances they wanted and obtained. How many people have given WikiLeaks some funds but only after obtaining written assurances that WikiLeaks will not throw all caution to the wind?
Consider this. There are Israelis who are against the IDF being in the occupied territories and were opposed to the war on Lebanon and were opposed to Operation Cast Lead but do not want to jeopardize whatever potential there may be for peace negotiations and diplomacy and don't want security vulnerabilities leaked such that it would then become an easy matter for exploitation and major death and destruction of Israelis.
Frankly, these are the same considerations used by WikiLeaks when Daniel was there when redacting names and some other things from the cables and no doubt that went through Julian's mind as he decided what to release and in what order and when and to whom and with what pre-assurances from those publishers, such as The New York Times.
The agreement with the Israelis, if there was/is one, could be very borderline. It could cross the line more than I would care to, or it could be very acceptable to the vast majority of most of those who had been unwavering WikiLeaks supporters until these articles started appearing, clearly which are designed to, among other things, cast doubt in the minds of supporters.
The IndyBay article then turns to the issue of WikiLeaks' Julian Assange focusing on the Empire (the U.S.). The criticism of Daniel and others is that WikiLeaks stopped dividing its efforts across the spectrum and started going after the big stories. Well, I must say that this could be a result of poor organizational skills on Julian's part but could also be a function of insufficient trustworthy volunteers or a combination of both.
On the other hand, going for the jugular of the Empire is not exactly stupid considering that time was of the essence since the Empire was planning all along on getting at WikiLeaks and Assange. Getting the notoriety associated with the spectacular would gain the free publicity needed to attract more volunteers as well. Look at the numbers of people who have jumped on the bandwagon in one form or another since the Empire has been striking back. People are coming out of the woodwork to conduct counter strikes, people with no direct association with WikiLeaks. Surely, that's not been in the interest of Zionist-Israel.
Prioritizing and delegating are art forms. Just because Assange and Domscheit-Berg disagree, are we to conclude that Julian is Mossad? That sort of jumping to conclusions is highly misleading. I don't want the Zionists bombing Iran based upon a pack of wild speculations drummed up for ulterior motives. I insist upon hard evidence before saying that any exists. Even then, I'm interested in peace making.
I insist upon huge preponderance of evidence where totally hard evidence is not forthcoming. Some of the arguments I've seen for concluding that Julian is Mossad are incredible stretches that verge upon the psychotic. Although, I understand how that snowball gathers as it rolls down the hill.
Here's Jeff Prager posting on Monday, December 6, 2010 at 9:35pm on Facebook: (I'm not saying Jeff is psychotic, but I don't know that he isn't sometimes.)
8. Puhleeze, these guys either aren't too smart or they're playing games because: The contact number on Wikileaks.org has a D.C. area code and is a Verizon cell phone number registered in Adelphi, Maryland. Intellus.com, a Web tracking service, connected the number to a 'V.A. Reston.' (give me a f___ing [my redaction] break!) Twenty miles from Adelphi is Reston, VA., home to iDefense Labs, whose web site says it is a "comprehensive provider of security intelligence to governments." The Washington, DC telephone number is also on the same exchange as the newly created "Iraq Study Group" (2005) and the Afghanistan Embassy Of Washington. The Iraq Study Group was designed by the Public Relations Firm hired by the US government to promote the Iraq War to us in the media.
That's number 8 of 14. I don't say that Jeff provides no food for thought in any of the 14 points he raised, but this is not evidence. The D.C. area code apply to how many entities? How many entities are in Reston, VA? How many entities share the same telephone exchange? Besides, why wouldn't WikiLeaks want to be making a statement that it has infiltrated the Empire?
Everything I've seen thus far that is anti-WikiLeaks and anti-Julian Assange can be taken other ways just as easily. Raising questions is one thing. Chiseling conclusions in granite when there are outstanding questions is not a good idea. Reserving judgment is by far the wiser approach. Note that Jeff qualified at the beginning of the paragraph but that the whole tenor of the paragraph is that WikiLeaks is CIA or Mossad or both or something like it on the side of the Empire or at least Greater Israel in the making.
Look, everyone who doesn't agree that 9/11 was an inside job on some level is not CIA. Many are simply not sufficiently informed of the details. The same applies to anti-Zionism. Many people haven't been informed of the vast ethnic-cleansing.
How many people have never read or heard someone such as Ilan Pappe, the revisionist Israeli historian who is widely renowned in anti-Zionist circles? He's censored. Can you blame people who have never been exposed? I think they can be faulted for a lack of interest in deep politics, but there's also something to be said for youth. There was a time when I was not exposed. There are tons of children coming up who are not being exposed even while millions are. We are working on it. I think WikiLeaks helps in that regard. I think Julian Assange would agree, even if he's ignorant or duped or hypnotized about, 9/11 and building 7 and such.
It has taken a long time for the 9/11 Truth Movement to arrive at the subtle and refined position of simply asking people to consider what the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have to say about Building 7 while the Movement's members don't offer up conspiracy theories that go deep.
It's why Geraldo Rivera finally got off his high horse, at least somewhat off it.
No doubt, Julian is like many leftists (not that he's a leftists, per se; I say he isn't) who hate Iran not because it's a threat to Israel but because Iran's leadership is Muslim and that Islam under them, is against so-called "free love."
That position has had a great deal to do with why so many leftists have sided with the CIA against Iran.
I don't agree with that approach at all. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend or ally. The truth is my friend and ally. The CIA stinks every bit as much as do the Iran leaders, more so in my book.
I'm completely opposed to sharia, but I'm completely opposed to the CIA: a rock and a hard place, as they say; but I'm rising above it because the flesh is not the beginning or the end. The spirit is.
Jeff Prager adds: "Bonus: If it's too good to be true it's a lie." No. There's no such thing as too good. Truth is the good, period.
I'm not faulting Daniel's stated attitude that the sharing should be broader and the "smaller" stories should not collect dust. The balancing act between rushing shoddy stories to publication and getting people killed versus getting everything perfect and avoiding all potential harm in the eyes of even the greatest enemy is a judgment call and situational, a moving target, because no two stories are the same.
I would not have confined release to the major publications Julian chose. However, I don't know that Julian approached only those publications either. He may have asked others, but they might have refused any strings concerning redactions or when to publish (all on the same day).
Choosing to go with those big names though did guarantee huge exposure. It did though sacrifice the smaller, alternative presses out there that do so much of the initial heavy lifting only to see the big fish glide in to take up all the ideas and treat them in their own articles as if they are original with those big fish (well-connected; more so "yes men"; very cliquish).
Continuing with the IndyBay articles:
Following the leak (and even before), Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a press conference that Israel had "worked in advance" to limit any damage from leaks, adding that "no classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks."  In an interview with the Time magazine around the same time, Assange praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness! 
Of course Israel did that. They've been doing that more so than any other regime for decades. Israel has hated to memorialize anything, even internally if it can be avoided. Tony Blair also practiced this style by often holding lengthy meetings where he didn't allow any transcriptions or even vague minute-keeping.
The Israelis have attempted to excel in double meanings or coded language. That's one of the reasons they claim to be able to see coded language everywhere. It verges on the Kabalistic. Look at the Bible Code semi-nonsense. There are some interesting poetic devices in the Bible, but some Bible-Code types start hallucinating; Oh yes, evil spirits.
Look at what Netanyahu bragged about.
"Every Israeli leader has known for years that dispatches are likely to leak out, so we adapted ourselves to the reality of leaks," he said. "That has a bearing on who I invite to meetings. No classified Israeli material was exposed by WikiLeaks."
Why try to jump to the conclusion that Julian had anything to do with that? Who's hoping you won't read all the linked articles and why?
Of course the Zionists have known this. There are people who look at them through a microscope to bring them down. I do it. I don't like Zionism. In fact, I hate it with a passion. I don't hate the descendants of Jacob though, as if they are all some sort of evil seed more so than am I. There are lots of people who call themselves Jews in one form or another who earnestly desire the truth.
I've written about scores and scores of them on this blog. I'll be damned, literally, before I become an ethnic bigot against Jews. It's a sin to be an ethnic bigot. No human being knows who is and who is not beyond redemption in this age or the next. That's God's territory. Do you have God's perspective? I'm working on obtaining it, but I know I'm in no position to slaughter people. All I have to do to know that is to look in the mirror and remember why I've repented.
As for the TIME interview, Julian definitely did not praise "Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness!" That's a wild mischaracterization. It's a sweeping jumping to conclusions for effect. Doing that calls into question the thrust of the whole IndyBay article. Read the interview word-for-word, as I did, and see if you find where Julian "praised Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness!" You won't find it because it's not there.
What he did was speak matter-of-factly about Netanyahu. He agreed with Netanyahu where Netanyahu was/is correct. That is not a blanket endorsement of Netanyahu's policies or practices. Netanyahu was saying to the Arab leaders that they should have been openly saying Iran scares them rather than remaining publicly silent on it. Julian makes the point that by leaking what those Arabs have said, it might help the Iranians to become even more open themselves, thereby defusing the situation.
Iran is a prideful place. It's written all over them. They don't want to bend their knees to the U.S. They say they aren't pursuing nuclear weapons, but they don't want to strip naked and all go through the porno-scanners of nuclear-inspection invasiveness and limitations placed upon them unilaterally.
Work from that place rather than calling for the U.S., along with Israel, to bomb Iran into the Stone Age.
The TIME interview, far from condemning Julian Assange, shows him thinking out loud and revealing him to be someone working at deep thinking.
The fact that the world doesn't know him isn't entirely his fault. He answers the questions posed. Ask better, more revealing questions.
The IndyBay article ends with a bone thrown to Assange:
Finally, it might be worth pointing out that Assange might have done what he is alleged to have done in order protect himself and ensure that the leaked documents are published so as to expose the American hypocrisy, which he is said to be obsessed with "at the expense of more fundamental aims."
Combine Assange's likely anti-sharia leanings with his desire to retain his "insurance.aes256" file and private decryption key. Why would he give away the shop prematurely?
He has an agenda. What's the full extent of it? I know I don't agree with him 100%. Who does? Who agrees with anyone 100%? Who knows and understands anyone else 100%? Who knows and understands himself or herself 100%? The question is one of direction and becoming.
What do we want for the world?
The truth is best, and that's not too good to be true.
I can't judge any agreement Julian Assange may have made with any Israelis without seeing more than what's been supplied to date via Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Can you in good conscience consign Julian to the trash heap based upon such scant info? Even the articles upon which others have condemned Julian have hedged.
If it turns out that Julian doesn't give a damn about the ethnic-cleansing of Palestinians, then I'll lump him in with Avigdor Lieberman and the rest of the fascists. The IndyBay article and the ones to which it links don't get me there. I need solid evidence before that, just as I demand solid evidence from Netanyahu about Iran rather than just a bunch of "we think they might be...."
George W. Bush sold most Americans on war with lies. He knew that U.S. intelligence didn't know where the WMD were because the U.N. Weapons Inspectors couldn't find anything. If the CIA or Mossad had known where any WMD was, the U.N. would have gone there in a rush and the U.S. Pentagon and the NSA would have been recording it all from air and space. No big trucks or trains or whatever would have been able to move a thing from the "known" locations without the U.N. hearing about it and being shown the evidence. It never happened because there were no WMD.
So, do we just accept the word of the perjurers? I don't.
Too bad the wolf actually shows up in the story, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Learn the moral of the story. That's what parables are for.
Anyway, they are crying wolf when there isn't one, again.
Who put out your forest fire, Bebe? Did the Turks help? Maybe you should let them go help in Palestine and Gaza too. Maybe you'd be loved rather than hated.
"Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall."
Just make sure there's a President waiting who won't send in the vultures rather than a helping hand, such as the Turks showed in helping to put out the fire.
If George H. W. Bush hadn't been suffering from a lack of what he termed "the vision thing," Russia could have transitioned without years of severe deprivation. The West sent in banksters — not a friendly or neighborly thing to have done to one opening up.
Now, here's the opening of Gordon Duff's anti-Assange piece:
Reports have come in today, tying Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, directly to Israeli intelligence and "Israel friendly" media outlets. We are told Assange, while at a Geneva meeting, agreed to allow Israel to select or censor all Wikileak output.
Despite the dramatic arrest of Julian Assange for rape, a story long hyped by the media, Assange "the martyr" now appears to be Assange "the Israeli spy." Reports from inside Wikileaks differ greatly from the image presented by the press, an Assange tied to ultra-nationalist Israeli groups, an Assange with an extremist agenda, an Assange who sees himself as a geopolitical player, willing to censor, willing to fabricate and willing to betray.
"...directly to Israeli intelligence" where? The articles linked to by IndyBay, which Gordon Duff uses as his sources, don't say "Israeli intelligence." They don't identify the other parties. Maybe something is lost in the translation. Does Gordon read Arabic? It says, "met with Israeli officials, believed to be intelligence personnel and / or diplomats." That leaves it open where Gordon closes it. Why do that, Gordon? That doesn't help the anti-Zionist cause.
If it comes out that they were definitely Israel intelligence, say it then but not before.
"...believed to be intelligence personnel and / or diplomats" by whom? It could be anyone. If they are only "believed to be," then the parties making the allegations don't really know, now do they.
"Israeli bodies semi-formal funded Osanj [Assange], and that diplomats Israelis gathered in Geneva and concluded deal with him not to publish any documents that would harm the interests of the Jewish state." [Google translation] How does Daniel know that? Did Julian tell him?
Gordon also states, "We are told Assange, while at a Geneva meeting, agreed to allow Israel to select or censor all Wikileak output." Where did he get that? It's not in the linked articles.
He goes on to say:
Reports from inside Wikileaks differ greatly from the image presented by the press, an Assange tied to ultra-nationalist Israeli groups, an Assange with an extremist agenda, an Assange who sees himself as a geopolitical player, willing to censor, willing to fabricate and willing to betray.
"...an Assange tied to ultra-nationalist Israeli groups"? There just is nothing in those linked articles that supports this. It could be posed as a question, but to make such an emphatic declaration is wildly dangerous/reckless.
Man oh man, the cablegate cables released so far don't show a smoking gun for 9/11. It they were to, I should think the people who perpetrated it are the dumbest clucks to come down the pike. They aren't brilliant on all levels, I'll grant that; but that stupid? Hey, let's let every Private First Class (being groomed for intelligence work) see who did 9/11 (Top Secret). Oh, Gordon, the cablegate cables are not really "Top Secret."
How can you know that any cables have magically disappeared, Gordon, just because they haven't been released? How do you know that Bradley Manning or whomever had documentation of every negotiation?
Gordon goes on to say about Julian, "His article cites Murdoch as his inspiration. A day later, we learn that Assange was working, not just for Israeli ultranationalist Murdoch but for the Israel government as well."
What Julian really said is this:
IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."
His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.
Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.
Hello, Gordon. Julian is calling Rupert back to better roots. It doesn't show that Julian is "working...for Israeli ultranationalist Murdoch." You make it sound as if he's on the payroll. You don't have evidence of that. He's working indirectly for Murdoch only provided Rupert sees some light and changes his style quite a bit.
What Julian wants is Murdoch to stand up against the leadership of Australia that is decidedly Zionist. Haven't you heard Julia Gillard railing against all things anti-Zionist? She's hyper. She's not supporting Julian even slightly.
Check out the following video. If you can't watch the beginning (I recommend you watch the whole thing), go to 2:32 of the video to see and hear Julia Gillard, Julian Assange's enemy, in action:
I'm not going to say that there are not other ways of taking some of the events that day, but I will say that I am a 9/11 Truther. The official-government version is hogwash.
So, what was Rupert going to do with a request for an op-ed by Assange, say no? Julian's huge news, and doing that would have left Murdoch with Assange having huge ammunition that FOX and the rest of the Murdochian Empire is exactly what it has been being: Reactionary and Zionist, etc.
It is interesting Julian says he's not anti-war. Okay, Julian. You're anti "illegal" wars. You're anti-so-called "unjust" wars. There. Is that better?
I am anti-war through-and-through — no qualifiers. Any collateral damage is unacceptable to me, and no one, including Julian Assange can guarantee me a perfect record on condemnation and the ultimate, final worldly punishment that is death of the flesh. It's better left to the high power who is God because taking one innocent flesh life to save anyone else is premeditated murder even if you've never heard of the one sacrificed. It's the lesson of the crucifixion. They murdered Jesus even though he sacrificed his fleshly life to save you (who hears him) from the liars.
Gordon then writes:
AN ISRAELI PSY-OP?
All three, Gingrich, Assange and Murdoch have several things in common. All are avid Zionists, supporters of Israel's expansion. Murdoch, Australian born of a Jewish mother, is an Israeli citizen and the powerful guiding force behind the ultranationalist Likudist Party, the hardliners pushing to dispossess Palestine's non-Jewish population, Israel's anti-American political wing.
Assange, we know nothing of him other than the rumors and myths, now all brought into serious question.
Gingrich's move to "the darkside" traces back to the beginnings of his political career.
What planet is this? "All three, Gingrich, Assange and Murdoch have several things in common. All are avid Zionists, supporters of Israel's expansion." Then suddenly, "Assange, we know nothing of him other than the rumors and myths, now all brought into serious question." I thought you just said "Assange ... [is one of the ] avid Zionists, supporters of Israel's expansion."
As Julian would say to you, which one am I? I can't be both. Where are your facts, man?
By the way, how does Veterans Today Network rate being a Google News site? That strikes me as odd. Becoming a Google News site requires a great deal of something. When I look at the various blogs out there that are not Google News sites and then I compare those against Veterans Today Network, I wonder. I wonder out loud right here. I'm not saying that Gordon Duff never writes anything of value. I've liked plenty of things I've read on his site and that he's written, but a Google News site? Well, I'd like to see Google open up to everybody. Google's tiered approach stinks of greed. Some sites rate being "News" others first-tier Blogs and then all the rest are found only in "Blog Search." Some of the best are in "Blog Search," but you have to bookmark it or go through two levels above to get to them via Google News. Hey Gordon, Jews run Google. You must be a favorite of theirs.
So, WikiLeaks has 251,287 cablegate cables. It has released some 20,000 (I keep hearing 2,000) to date. Of the 2 thousand, 77 mention Israel. Okay, what does that prove concerning Julian Assange being Mossad? It proves absolutely nothing.
How many cables of the 251,287 deal with Israel? Did Julian search on the term? Has he actually read all 251,287?
Look, if there are cables dealing with Israel, Julian needs to release those even though most will be pro-Israel. Some will have some semi-hard (albeit party-line) assessments if the other cables are any indication. Still, the State Department is an "ally" of Israel over the Arab states by reason of rich (some superrich) Zionists in the U.S. That's how all the cables must be read.
I'm addressing a friend here and making it public since some of the questions will likely be shared by others
As to whether the few cables to which I linked are damaging, they are, albeit not in the way or degree you'd like (same here). You and I both want to see leaks that will hit the masses right between the eyes.
You specifically asked, "How is it damaging to Netanyahu that he is willing to exchange (return, is what folks should be saying) land for peace?" Well, when he balks in public in Israel, you point it out to him and see the reaction you get. He'll fumble about at best. His constituents include many "settlers" who don't want such a deal. They want it all.
I grant you that this sort of thing is subtle, too subtle so far for the masses (typical pro-FOX viewers). I believe that's your point — that there just isn't anything to cause a great uproar. However, the things in the cables affect things in ways unintended by Netanyahu.
Also bear in mind that as a psychological ploy, Benjamin Netanyahu claims there has been no damage. He is a liar. Don't fall for it. If he had sent anyone to bribe Julian, he wouldn't be feeding into the anti-Assange conspiracy theories that Assange is Mossad.
It has not done Israel any good at all in my view that the Arab puppets "secretly" (known well to many in the alternative media but not pro-FOX viewers) have been clamoring to attack Iran. It has muddied the waters for those who want to attack Iran. Try looking at it from the perspective of other than those already in favor of attacking. Look at it as one who doesn't think that the only game is wooing the clucks who buy all the neocon's sound bites.
Do you really believe we are now closer to attacking Iran with the support of general American public opinion? I don't. I believe what has happened is that more and more people are seeing reasons they should not trust what they are hearing from the neocons and the Arabs calling for attacking Iran. Many more people are learning why certain nominal Sunnis want to attack the Shia of Iran.
"How is it damaging that he asked Abbas or Egypt to take control of Gaza?" It plays right into the hands of anti-Zionist statements that Fatah has been highly selfish and duplicitous. It also points out that Mubarak is a dictator.
Pure anti-Zionism isn't the only issue. The whole world of politics is interconnected. Again though, I know you want a really glaring cable. I understand that. The absence of such though does not prove that Julian Assange took a bribe from fascist Zionists.
Remember, my goal is not to spin this. My clearly stated goal is to get answers to the written questions: Open Interrogatories and Requests for Documentation to Daniel Domscheit-Berg of OpenLeaks Concerning Accusations of Zionist-Bribery Against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. If Julian Assange is guilty, so be it.
As for "It ... [coming] across as if Israel doesn't want Gaza," that's not how I view it. Palestinians have been a headache for the U.S. puppets. Jordan could have had the West Bank. They didn't want it. Of course, Israel wants Fatah back on top in Gaza over Hamas. That doesn't say that ultimately the Zionists don't want it all. The Zionists have a very long-term plan.
Abbas too is a calculator. He miscalculated in the short run when he took U.S. and Israeli money and equipment to fight Hamas. He doesn't though want Hamas in charge of Palestine. In the long run then, from his view, was it a mistake?
"...the world will find sympathy for Israel." It isn't happening. The Neocon media tries spinning it that way, but there is only a bigger backlash.
I don't agree with Netanyahu's statement that Israel hasn't been harmed. It just hasn't been clobbered in State Department cables the way Israel was over the Mavi Marmara. It just hasn't been the focus as much.
Let me wrap up by repeating what I've been writing about this all along. People writing State Department cables hold to the party line. The idea that the Zionists sat around saying, "Hey, people writing State Department cables hold to the party line, so let's leak those because it will just be another round of our getting out our message," is just giving them way too much credit on one hand while on the other hand showing them unable to see what all the pro-WikiLeaks-anti-Zionists will say to counter.
The "Collateral Murder" video didn't help the cause of attacking Iran. It harmed it and hugely so. The "War Logs" and other leaks about the torture and the lying about even the deflated number of non-combatant deaths didn't help the cause of attacking Iran.
You have to look at the whole body of work by Julian Assange, not just the Cablegate cables released to date.
If Julian plans to go after a major U.S. bank or two, possibly in his words, bring it or them down, that would be a huge black eye for the banksters. At the risk of offending Abe Foxman (ha), there are many neocons/Zionists in American banking, and the largest American banks are global. Consider it.
Is the Zionist plan to gut the U.S. thereby leaving the Zionists standing alone? What kind of Zionist planning would that be? Without the U.S. as a superpower before Israel is huge and domineering in the world, the Zionists would be crushed, with or without nuclear weapons.
Netanyahu and those who surround him are stupid but not that kind of stupid. It is in the Zionists' selfish interest that the U.S. be, and remain for a long time to come, the top and frankly only superpower. WikiLeaks has not helped them in that at all.
What Julian has done though is to give the American people an opportunity to be better informed voters. In so many words, that's been his stated plan.
Thank you to everyone who has linked to this post:
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)