Syria Truth Stands by Article, Calls Daniel Domscheit-Berg Liar?, and Will Release Emails



Syria Truth said that it would release the email(s) "tomorrow evening." That would have been the evening of the 23rd, December, 2010. Well, it's now December 24th, and I don't see anything on their site in the way of any such email(s). Perhaps I'm just missing it. If it's there and someone can provide the link, I'd appreciate it. Just leave the link in a comment. Thanks.

Otherwise, is this standard operating procedure for this site to be so shoddy? This is perhaps the only article that has ever put them on the "Western" map, even though it's not been much. You'd think they'd be extra diligent about putting the emails out there.

Of course, if they do, they better include all the headers. We need to see the servers that were involved. It's that important to global peace and justice.

In my update yesterday (UPDATE 4) of my article, "December 14, 2010 Steps: Daniel Domscheit-Berg (OpenLeaks) Bribery Allegations Against Julian Assange (WikiLeaks)," I wrote, "Will Syria Truth now "stand by it's article" and thereby call Daniel Domscheit-Berg a liar? Will they reveal as much as possible supporting such a claim?"

Well that's exactly their position:

In the meantime, and as a result of noise generated by the media report the "truth" referred to, perhaps under pressure, hurried Domokht Daniel Berg to issue a statement denying that he made a speech to a colleague Leah Abramowitz. It is strange that he kept silent for more than two weeks about what appeared in the international media about his speech for "the truth", which was rejected during the two weeks, several times, the answer to questions regarding the statement of a fellow Abramovich and extended to him by means of numerous media, Israeli and other foreign. But it suddenly decided to repudiate his statement! Which will pay the "truth" to the publication of the mirror image of one of his letters to fellow Abramovich tomorrow evening includes the above and told her earlier this month.

That's the final paragraph of an article on Syria Truth about it.

By the way, the article echoes Julian Assange speaking at some length about the amount of documentation it has on Israel and his plans for releasing the same. I'll have more to say about that in posts to come.

Here's what I have to say about Syria Truth's plan to release alleged emails from Daniel Domscheit-Berg:

Syria Truth is getting into some deep computer areas though that they may not understand. Daniel is not someone to mess with if it comes to getting at the truth regarding whether or not something actually happened on the standard Internet.

In addition, Syria Truth could get into having to cough up logs on servers they don't control. It's a legal issue. Daniel Domscheit-Berg could seek to force them via court.

So, Syria Truth may have to fall back on that they were duped, retract that they stand by their article, throw themselves on the mercy of the public, and/or end up "losing" at least with tens of millions of WikiLeaks supporters and growing.

However, is Daniel Domscheit-Berg telling the truth? Was Syria Truth just "used"? It's a pretty out-of-the-way site and only in Arabic. If not for Gordon Duff railing against Julian Assange, I doubt their story would have been a blip. Plus, they don't reply very well to emails, if at all. They very likely read mine and didn't reply.

Was John Young of cryptome duped. The latter is highly unlikely since he would never, unless he's really slipping (not likely; not that much so quickly and with his people around him), communicate with Daniel Domscheit-Berg on that level without a ring-of-trust key from Daniel Domscheit-Berg and not without being on a verified secret tunnel with him.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in WikiLeaks. Bookmark the permalink.