Ce que cache l'affaire Wikileaks Par DRIS
 International (LVO) : Nous savions depuis le début que l’affaire wikileaks est montée de toute pièce, mais il nous fallait des preuves et savoir que les médias aux ordres, comme toujours, étaient une nouvelle fois impliqué dans la manipulation à grande échelle ne suffisait pas. Il nous fallait donc aller chercher plus loin. et c'est chez nos amis asiatiques que nous avons trouvé le plus de précisions.
Selon nos recoupements avec bon nombre d’enquêteurs indépendants à travers le monde, Wikileaks fait partie des opérations de cyber-guerre des États-Unis.
Par exemple nous apprenons par WMR citant des sources de renseignement asiatiques que dans certains pays de l’Asie, en particulier la Chine et la Thaïlande, on croie fermement que le site Wikileaks, qui vise à publier des documents classifiés et sensibles tout en garantissant l'anonymat aux fournisseurs, est liée à la cyber-guerre et aux opérations d'espionnage informatique que mènent les États-Unis ainsi qu’aux propres activités de cyber-guerre du Mossad.
Wikileaks affirme avoir déchiffré des séquences vidéo d'une frappe américaine aérienne d'un Predator prenant pour cible des civils en Afghanistan et que le ministère d'Etat américain et ainsi que des agents du gouvernement Norvégiens ont poursuivi Wikileaks dans une opération de surveillance menée conjointement par les États-Unis et l'Islande. L'Islande a annoncé récemment vouloir mener une politique visant à devenir un refuge pour les sites qui craignent l'oppression politique et la censure dans leur pays d'origine. Nous citerons comme exemple la France, la Belgique et les pays du Maghreb. Toutefois, dans le cas de Wikileaks, il n’est pas étonnant que des pays comme la Chine et la Thaïlande se méfient de la réelle identité des ‘’propriétaires’’ de ce genre de sites.
Wikileaks affirme son intention de diffuser sa vidéo lors d'une conférence de presse le 5 avril au National Press Club à Washington, DC, mais averti que ses animateurs peuvent être détenus ou arrêtés avant cette date. Les sources de WMR pensent que la mise sous surveillance des pseudo militants de Wikileaks est une supercherie.
Voici ce que rapporte WMR : Nos sources de renseignement asiatiques rapportent ce qui suit: «Wikileaks dirige une campagne de désinformation, en pleurant à la persécution des services de renseignements américains, alors qu’il est lui-même le renseignement américains. Ses activités [Wikileaks] en Islande sont totalement suspectes. "Wikileaks affirme être victime d'une nouvelle COINTELPRO [Counter Intelligence Program] opération dirigée par le Pentagone et diverses agences de renseignement américaines. Les sources de WMR pensent que Wikileaks fait lui même partie intégrante d'une campagne de cyber-COINTELPRO, telle que celle proposée par le président Obama contre le tsar de l'information," Sunstein M. Cass.
En Janvier 2007, John Young, qui dirige cryptome.org, un site qui publie une mine d'informations sensibles et classifiées, à été la cible de Wikileaks qui affirmait que l'opération était une façade de la CIA. Young a également publié quelque 150 e-mails envoyés par des militants de Wikileaks sur Cryptome. Ils comprennent un commentaire désobligeant à propos de cet éditeur de la part du co-fondateur Australien de Wikileaks, le Dr. Julian Assange. L’une des spécialités de Assange serait en fait le ‘’hacking’’ (Piratage des réseaux informatiques). La co-fondatrice allemande de Wikileaks utilise un pseudonyme, "Daniel Schmitt."
Wikileaks affirme qu'elle est "une organisation multi-compétence pour protéger les dissidents de l'intérieur, les dénonciateurs, les journalistes et les blogueurs qui font face à des menaces juridiques ou autres liés à la publication" [dont] le principal intérêt est dans la dénonciation des régimes oppressifs en Asie, l'ancien bloc soviétique, sous- Afrique subsaharienne et du Moyen-Orient, mais nous apportons notre aide aux personnes de toutes les nations qui souhaitent mettre en évidence un comportement contraire à l'éthique au sein de leurs gouvernements et sociétés. Nous voulons avoir un impact politique maximum. Nous avons reçu plus de 1,2 millions de documents de la part de communautés dissidentes et de sources anonymes. "
En Chine, Wikileaks est soupçonné d'avoir des liens avec le Mossad. Il est souligné que son premier "trou" a été réalisé avec succès par un membre de Al Shabbab en Somalie. Al Shabbab est un groupe de la résistance musulmane, groupe que les néocons ont accusé d’être lié à Al-Qaïda."
Les sources de renseignement asiatiques soulignent également que le «doctorat» de Assange provient de l’université de Moffett, un moulin à diplômes en ligne et que pendant qu'il est soi-disant sur le terrain à Nairobi, au Kenya, il est en réalité en Australie, où ses exploits relevaient du piratage informatique et du piratage de logiciels .
WMR a confirmé l’accusation de Young selon laquelle Wikileaks est une opération de façade de la CIA. Wikileaks est directement impliquée dans une opération de la CIA financée à hauteur de 20 millions de dollars dans laquelle des dissidents chinois piratent des ordinateurs en Chine. Certains des pirates utilisent à travers le réseau internet de la chine, un programme de routage spécial dédié au piratage à l’aide d’ordinateurs chinois pour ensuite cibler les systèmes informatiques des Etats-Unis et du gouvernement militaire US. Une fois ce piratage accompli, le gouvernement américain annonce, par le biais de ses médias amis, que les ordinateurs américains ont été soumis à une cyber-attaque chinoise. La «menace» permet ainsi d’augmenter encore plus le budget de la lutte contre les cyber-infractions en jouant sur les craintes de l’opinion publique et des entreprises américaines qui s'appuient fortement sur la technologie de l'information.
Il est également souligné que le conseiller spéciale de Wikileaks est Ben Laurie, un programmeur d'un temps et expert en sécurité Internet pour Google, qui a récemment signé un accord de coopération avec le US National Security Agency (NSA) et a été accusé par la Chine de faire partie d'une campagne américaine de cyber-espionnage contre la Chine. Les autres membres du conseil de Wikileaks sont des leader dissidents chinois, dont Wan Dan, qui a remporté en 1998 le National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Democracy Award ; Wang Youcai, fondateur du parti démocratique chinois; Xiao Qiang, directeur du projet Internet de Chine à l'Université de Berkeley en Californie, membre du conseil consultatif de l'International Campaign for Tibet, et commentateur sur la Radio affiliée à George Soros, Free Asia; et l’activiste tibétain en exil Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang.
Nos sources en Asie croient que Wikileaks est entré en conflit avec les financiers de la CIA après avoir découvert qu’une partie de l’argent versées à Wikileaks était détournée par le Mossad au lieu d’aller chez leur bienfaiteurs Langley. Après une actu-off dans le financement de la CIA ", Daniel Schmitt" prend le relais et propose l'opération Wikileaks à la Belgique et la Suède avec l'espoir de monter une base plus sûr en Islande.
Il y a de forts soupçons que Wikileaks est une autre opération ‘’false flag’’ (‘’faux drapeau’’) financée par Soros sur le côté gauche du spectre politique. Après que l'ex-sénateur Norm Coleman (R-MN) a décidé d’opposer Soros au choix du Secrétaire général de l’ONU Kofi Annan de nommer Mark Malloch Brown président de la Banque mondiale, succédant à Paul Wolfowitz tombé en disgrâce, Soros a fait passé l'opération Wikileaks à la vitesse supérieure . "Daniel Schmitt" a piraté la liste des partisans de Coleman, volant les numéros de cartes de crédit et les adresses et publiant la ''prise'' sur Wikileaks. Le démocrate Al Franken, qui a été fortement soutenu par Soros, a battu Coleman lors d'une élection juridiquement contestée et avec un score très serré.
Il est aussi considéré par des sources bien informées que Soros est derrière l'opération de la migration de Wikileaks vers l'Islande. En devenant une puissance en Islande, Soros peut empêcher les Islandais de rembourser les investisseurs britanniques et néerlandais en Islande qui ont placé leur argent dans le système bancaires en ligne Ponzi et aussi poursuivre ses guerre tous azimuts contre le Premier ministre britannique Gordon Brown, qui a, à son tour, ciblés Soros pour les paris contre livre sterling.
L'Islande est une proie facile pour Soros. La couronne islandaise a été décimée en tant que monnaie et n’a nulle part où aller, surtout si la valeur de la livre sterling et de l'euro déprécient. Soros travaille actuellement pour faire tomber l'euro, il planifie sa chute et il court-circuite tout comme il l'a fait pour la livre sterling à Londres dans les années 1980. Après que les monnaies britannique et européenne soient dévaluées, Soros va acheter chaque note d'euros en vue, ce qui lui fera des trillions.
Soros et ses amis ont, en Wikileaks en Islande, un système bancaire pratiquement non règlementée pour un afflux inespéré de capitaux - l'argent qui proviendra de la magnats russe en exil en Israël, à Londres et aux États-Unis. Les investisseurs israéliens comme la Banque Leumi, crouleront sous les pompages à la Bernard Madoff, feront leur part pour cette opération smash-and-grab par les fonds de couverture Quantum-linked de Soros .
Et avec Wikileaks fermement installés en Islande, les fuites d'information tant annoncées seront exécutées pour une opération de chantage international contre les ennemis de Soros et pour lancer les attaques informatiques contre les rivaux de l'affaires Soros et les banques virtuelles. Wikileaks sera utilisé comme info-tueurs à gages contre le président Obama rival de Rahm Emanuel dans la campagne de réélection de 2012.
De l'Islande, Soros sera bien placé pour prendre le contrôle sur les énormes ressources minérales disponibles en vertu de la fonte des glaces du Groenland. Sous la glace, il à sa disposition les plus grands gisements de terres et de minerais rares en dehors de ceux de la Chine, Soros peut contrôler les industries de l'électronique dans le monde. l'activité volcanique de la semaine dernière en Islande pourrait, cependant, perturber ou détruire les plans de Soros pour établir et contrôler une passerelle entre l’Amérique du Nord et l'Europe en Islande.
Ce qui suit est un échantillon des e-mails que Young a révélé dans son exposé sur les connexions CIA Wikileaks (ainsi qu’avec la Mafia Russe spécialisée dans le "phishing", une opération dirigée par les juifs russo-israéliens avec pour base Israël)
D.R.I.S. Pour Stcom.net et pour la vérité
[Note: dans le second e-mail, "JYA" est une référence à John Young Associates] :
To: John Young
From: Wikileaks
Subject: martha stuart pgp
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 12:20:25 -0500
—–BEGIN PGP MESSAGE—–
Version: None
J. We are going to fuck them all. Chinese mostly, but not entirely a feint. Invention abounds. Lies, twists and distorts everywhere needed for protection. Hackers monitor chinese and other intel as they burrow into their targets, when they pull, so do we.
Inxhaustible supply of material. Near 100,000 documents/emails a day. We’re going to crack the world open and let it flower into something new. If fleecing the CIA will assist us, then fleece we will. We have pullbacks from NED, CFR, Freedomhouse and other CIA teats. We have all of pre 2005 afghanistan. Almost all of india fed. Half a dozen foreign ministries. Dozens of political parties and consulates, worldbank, apec, UN sections, trade groups, tibet and fulan dafa associations and… russian phishing mafia who pull data everywhere. We’re drowing. We don’t even know a tenth of what we have or who it belongs to. We stopped storing it at 1Tb.
——————————————-
From: Julian Assange
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:40:14 +0000
To: funtimesahead[a t]lists.riseup.net
Subject: [WL] cryptome disclosure
[This is a restricted internal development mailinglist for w-i-k-i-l-e-a-k-s-.-o-r-g.
Please do not mention that word directly in these discussions; refer instead to 'WL'.
This list is housed at riseup.net, an activist collective in Seattle with an established lawyer and plenty of backbone.]
No idea what JYA was saying!
It’s clear to me however, that he was not trying to protect people’s identities with his xxxxx’ing, but rather trying to increase the sexiness of the document. Perhaps he feels WL is a threat to the central status mechanism in his life? I think he just likes the controversy.
He may have done us a great favor. There’s a lot of movement in that document. It’s a little anarchist, but I think it generally reads well and sounds like people doing something they care about.
Btw, I suggest we be careful with Wayne Madsen too. He seems to be another case of someone who was fantastic a few years ago, but recently has started to see conspiracies everywhere. Both cases possibly age related.
I am not spending any more thought on it. Next week is going to be busy. The weeks earlier stories will be already done and that’ll set the agenda for the rest of the week, not jya’s attention seeker.
I’m willing to handle calls for .au, although my background may make
S a better bet.
————————–
10 - Mottaki: l'Iran n'utilisera jamais sa force contre ses voisins
Who is Behind Wikileaks?
By Michel Chossudovsky |
|
Global Research, December 13, 2010 |
"World bankers, by pulling a few simple levers that control the flow of money, can make or break entire economies. By controlling press releases of economic strategies that shape national trends, the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on this nation's economic structure, but can extend that control world wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain in the background, invisible to the average citizen." (Aldus Huxley)
Wikleaks is upheld as a breakthrough in the battle against media disinformation and the lies of the US government.
Unquestionably, the released documents constitute an important and valuable data bank. The documents have been used by critical researchers since the outset of the Wikileaks project. Wikileaks earlier revelations have focussed on US war crimes in Afghanistan (July 2010) as well as issues pertaining to civil liberties and the "militarization of the Homeland" (see Tom Burghardt, Militarizing the "Homeland" in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis, Global Research, October 11, 2008)
In October 2010, WikiLeaks was reported to have released some 400,000 classified Iraq war documents, covering events from 2004 to 2009 (Tom Burghardt, The WikiLeaks Release: U.S. Complicity and Cover-Up of Iraq Torture Exposed, Global Research, October 24, 2010). These revelations contained in the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs provide "further evidence of the Pentagon's role in the systematic torture of Iraqi citizens by the U.S.-installed post-Saddam regime." (Ibid)
Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor. Our own website Global Research has provided extensive coverage of the Wikileaks project.
The leaks are heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media censorship.
But there more than meets the eye.
Even prior to the launching of the project, the mainstream media had contacted Wikileaks.
There are also reports from published email exchanges that Wikileaks had entered into negotiations with several corporate foundations for funding. (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).
The linchpin of WikiLeaks's financial network is Germany's Wau Holland Foundation. ... "We're registered as a library in Australia, we're registered as a foundation in France, we're registered as a newspaper in Sweden," Mr. Assange said. WikiLeaks has two tax-exempt charitable organizations in the U.S., known as 501C3s, that "act as a front" for the website, he said. He declined to give their names, saying they could "lose some of their grant money because of political sensitivities."
Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks gets about half its money from modest donations processed by its website, and the other half from "personal contacts," including "people with some millions who approach us...." (WikiLeaks Keeps Funding Secret, WSJ.com, August 23, 2010) At the outset in early 2007, Wikileaks acknowledges that it was "founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa".... [Its advisory board] includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers." (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).
Wikileaks formulated its mandate on its website as follows: [ Wikileaks will be] "an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations," CBC News - Website wants to take whistleblowing online, January 11, 2007, emphasis added).
This mandate was confirmed by Julian Assange in June 2010 interview in the New Yorker:
"Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations. In an invitation to potential collaborators in 2006, he wrote, “Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations...." (quoted in WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, emphasis added) Assange also intimated that "exposing secrets" "could potentially bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the US administration." (Ibid)
From the outset, Wikileaks' geopolitical focus on "oppressive regimes" in the former Soviet Union, the Middle East and Central Asia was "appealing", i.e. consistent with US foreign policy.
The composition of the Wikileaks team, not to mention the methodology of "exposing secrets" of foreign governments, were in line with the practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering "regime change".
The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New York Times
Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel are directly involved in the editing and selection of leaked documents. The Economist and Time Magazine have also played an important role.
While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment and concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks releases of embassy cables have been carefully "redacted" by the mainstream media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview with David E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8, 2010)
This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between several major US and European newspapers and Wikileaks' editor Julian Assange.
The important question is who controls and oversees the selection, distribution and editing of released documents to the broader public?
What US foreign policy objectives are being served through this redacting process?
Is Wikileaks part of an awakening of public opinion, of a battle against the lies and fabrications which appear daily in the print media and on network TV?
If so, how can this battle against media disinformation be waged with the participation and collaboration of the corporate architects of media disinformation.
Julian Assange has enlisted the architects of media disinformation to fight media disinformation: An incongruous and self-defeating procedure.
America's corporate media and more specifically the New York Times are an integral part of the economic establishment, with links to Wall Street, the Washington think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Moreover, the US corporate media has developed a longstanding relationship to the US intelligence apparatus, going back to "Operation Mocking Bird", an initiative of the CIA's Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s.
Even before the Wikileaks project got off the ground, the mainstream media was implicated. A role was defined and agreed upon for the corporate media not only in the release, but also in the selection and editing of the leaks. In a bitter irony, the "professional media" to use Julian Assange's words in an interview with The Economist, have been partners in the Wikileaks project from the outset.
Moreover, key journalists with links to the US foreign policy-national security intelligence establishment have worked closely with Wikileaks, in the distribution and dissemination of the leaked documents.
In a bitter irony, Wikileaks partner, The New York Times which has consistently promoted media disinformation is now being accused of conspiracy. For what? For revealing the truth? Or for manipulating the truth? In the words of Senator Joseph L. Lieberman:
“I certainly believe that WikiLleaks has violated the Espionage Act, but then what about the news organizations — including The Times — that accepted it and distributed it?” Mr. Lieberman said, adding: “To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, and whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.” (WikiLeaks Prosecution Studied by Justice Department - NYTimes.com, December 7, 2010) This "redacting" role of The New York Times is candidly acknowledged by David E Sanger, Chief Washington correspondent of the NYT:
"[W]e went through [the cables] so carefully to try to redact material that we thought could be damaging to individuals or undercut ongoing operations. And we even took the very unusual step of showing the 100 cables or so that we were writing from to the U.S. government and asking them if they had additional redactions to suggest." (See PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media, PBS interview on "Fresh Air" with Terry Gross: December 8, 2010, emphasis added). Yet he also says later in the interview:
"It is the responsibility of American journalism, back to the founding of this country, to get out and try to grapple with the hardest issues of the day and to do it independently of the government." (ibid) "Do it independently of the government" while at the same time "asking them [the US government] if they had additional redactions to suggest"?
David E. Sanger cannot be described as a model independent journalist. He is member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Institute's Strategy Group which regroups the likes of Madeleine K. Albright, Condoleeza Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, Robert.B. Zoellick (president of the World Bank), and Philip Zelikow (formerly executive director of the 9/11 Commission) (among other prominent establishment figures). (See also F. William Engdahl, Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job, Global Research, December 10, 2010).
Several American journalists, members of the Council on Foreign Relations interviewed Wikileaks, including Time Magazine's Richard Stengel (November 30, 2010) and The New Yorker's Raffi Khatchadurian. (WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 11, 2007)
Historically, The New York Times has served the interests of the Rockefeller family in the context of a longstanding relationship. The current New York Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, son of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and grandson of Arthur Hays Sulzberger who served as a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation. Ethan Bronner, deputy foreign editor of The New York Times as well as Thomas Friedman among others are members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
In turn, the Rockefellers have an important stake as shareholders of several US corporate media. (Membership Roster - Council on Foreign Relations)
The Embassy and State Department Cables
It should come as no surprise that David E. Sanger and his colleagues at the NYT centered their attention on a highly "selective" dissemination of the Wikileaks cables, focussing on areas which would support US foreign policy interests: Iran's nuclear program, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's support of al Qaeda, China's relations with North Korea, etc. These releases were then used as source material in NYT articles and commentary.
The Embassy and State Department cables released by Wikileaks were redacted and filtered. They were used for propaganda purposes. They do not constitute a complete and continuous set of memoranda.
From a selected list of cables, the leaks are being used to justify a foreign policy agenda. A case in point is Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, which is the object of numerous State Department memos, as well Saudi Arabia's support of Islamic terrorism.
Iran's Nuclear Program
The leaked cables are used to feed the disinformation campaign concerning Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the leaked cables are heralded as "evidence" that Iran constitutes a threat, the lies and fabrications of the corporate media concerning Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program are not mentioned, nor is there any mention of them in the leaked cables.
The leaks, once they are funnelled into the corporate news chain, edited and redacted by the New York Times, indelibly serve the broader interests of US foreign policy, including US-NATO-Israel war preparations directed against Iran.
With the regard to "leaked intelligence" and the coverage of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program, David E. Sanger has played a crucial role. In November 2005, The New York Times published a report co-authored by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad entitled "Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims".
The article refers to mysterious documents on a stolen Iranian laptop computer which included "a series of drawings of a missile re-entry vehicle" which allegedly could accommodate an Iranian produced nuclear weapon:
"In mid-July, senior American intelligence officials called the leaders of the international atomic inspection agency to the top of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer.
The Americans flashed on a screen and spread over a conference table selections from more than a thousand pages of Iranian computer simulations and accounts of experiments, saying they showed a long effort to design a nuclear warhead, according to a half-dozen European and American participants in the meeting.
The documents, the Americans acknowledged from the start, do not prove that Iran has an atomic bomb. They presented them as the strongest evidence yet that, despite Iran's insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, the country is trying to develop a compact warhead to fit atop its Shahab missile, which can reach Israel and other countries in the Middle East."(William J. Broad and David E. Sanger Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims - New York Times, November 13, 2005) These "secret documents" were subsequently submitted by the US State Department to the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, with a view to demonstrating that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons program. They were also used as a pretext to enforce the economic sanctions regime directed against Iran, adopted by the UN Security Council.
While their authenticity has been questioned, a recent article by investigative reporter Gareth Porter confirms unequivocally that the mysterious laptop documents are fake. (See Gareth Porter, Exclusive Report: Evidence of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program May Be Fraudulent, Global Research, November 18, 2010)
The drawings contained in the documents leaked by William J. Broad and David E. Sanger do not pertain to the Shahab missile but to an obsolete North Korean missile system which was decommissioned by Iran in the mid-1990s. The drawings presented by US State Department officials pertained to the "Wrong Missile Warhead":
In July 2005, ... Robert Joseph, US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, made a formal presentation on the purported Iranian nuclear weapons program documents to the agency's leading officials in Vienna. Joseph flashed excerpts from the documents on the screen, giving special attention to the series of technical drawings or "schematics" showing 18 different ways of fitting an unidentified payload into the re-entry vehicle or "warhead" of Iran's medium-range ballistic missile, the Shahab-3. When IAEA analysts were allowed to study the documents, however, they discovered that those schematics were based on a re-entry vehicle that the analysts knew had already been abandoned by the Iranian military in favor of a new, improved design. The warhead shown in the schematics had the familiar "dunce cap" shape of the original North Korean No Dong missile, which Iran had acquired in the mid-1990s. ... The laptop documents had depicted the wrong re-entry vehicle being redesigned. ... (Gareth Porter, op cit, emphasis added) David E, Sanger, who worked diligently with Wikileaks was also instrumental in the New York Times "leak" of what Gareth Porter describes as fake intelligence.(Ibid)
While this issue of fake intelligence received virtually no media coverage, it invalidates outright Washington's assertions regarding Iran's alleged nuclear weapons.
In a bitter irony, the selective redacting of the embassy cables by the NYT has usefully served not only to dismiss the issue of fake intelligence but also to reinforce Washington's claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. A case in point is a November 2010 article co-authored by David E. Sanger, which quotes the Wikileaks cables as a source;
"Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a [Wikileaks] cable dated Feb. 24 of this year.... (WikiLeaks Archive — Iran Armed by North Korea - NYTimes.com, November 28, 2010). These missiles are said to have the "capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe or easily reach Moscow, and American officials warned that their advanced propulsion could speed Iran’s development of intercontinental ballistic missiles." (Ibid, emphasis added).
Wikileaks, Iran and the Arab World
The released wikileaks cables have also being used to create divisions between Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States on the other:
"After WikiLeaks claimed that certain Arab states are concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and have urged the U.S. to take [military] action to contain Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took advantage of the issue and said that the released cables showed U.S. concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program are shared by the international community." Tehran Times : WikiLeaks promoting Iranophobia, December 5, 2010) The Western media has jumped on this opportunity and has quoted the State Department memoranda released by Wikleaks with a view to upholding Iran as a threat to global security as well as fostering divisions between Iran and the Arab world. "The Global War on Terrorism"
The leaks quoted by the Western media reveal the support of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to several Islamic terrorist organization, a fact which is known and amply documented.
What the reports fail to mention, however, which is crucial in an understanding of the "Global War on Terrorism", is that US intelligence historically has channelled its support to terrorist organizations via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. REF These are covert intelligence operations using Saudi and Pakistani intelligence as intermediaries.
The use of the Wikleaks documents by the media tend to sustain the illusion that the CIA has nothing to do with the terror network and that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are "providing the lion's share of funding" to Al Qaeda, the Taliban Lashkar-e-Taiba, among others, when in fact this financing is undertaken in liaison with their US intelligence counterparts.
Similarly, with regard to Pakistan: The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organizations, make it clear that underneath public reassurances lie deep clashes [between the U.S. and Pakistan] over strategic goals on issues like Pakistan's support for the Afghan Taliban and tolerance of Al Qaeda,..." (Wary Dance With Pakistan in Nuclear World, The New York Times December 1, 2010 The corporate media's use and interpretation of the Wikileaks cables serves to uphold two related myths: 1) Iran has nuclear weapons program and constitutes a threat to global security. 2) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are state sponsors of Al Qaeda. They are financing Islamic terrorist organizations which are intent upon attacking the US States and its NATO allies. The CIA and the Corporate Media
The CIA's relationship to the US media is amply documented. The New York Times continues to entertain a close relationship with not only with US intelligence, but also with the Pentagon and more recently with the Department of Homeland Security.
"Operation Mocking Bird" was an initiative of the CIA's Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s. Its objective was to exert influence on both the US as well as foreign media. From the 1950s, members of the US media were routinely enlisted by the CIA.
The inner workings of the CIA's relationship to the US media are described in Carl Bernstein's 1977 article in Rolling Stone entitled The CIA and the Media:
[M]ore than 400 American journalists who [had] secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. [1950-1977]Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. ... Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners,... Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work....; Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune. The CIA and the Media by Carl Bernstein Bernstein suggests, in this regard, that "the CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress" (Ibid).
In recent years, the CIA's relationship to the media has become increasingly complex and sophisticated. We are dealing with mammoth propaganda network involving a number of agencies of government.
Media disinformation has become institutionalized. The lies and fabrications have become increasingly blatant when compared to the 1950s. The US media has become the mouthpiece of US foreign policy. Disinformation is routinely "planted" by CIA operatives in the newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels:
"A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain."(Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation of 9/11, Global Research, September 19, 2002) Since 2001, the US media has assumed a new role in sustaining the Global War on Terrorism and camouflaging US sponsored war crimes. In the wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics: "The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across the world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002, see also michel Chossudovsky, War Propaganda, January 3, 2003).
Today's corporate media is an instrument of war propaganda, which begs the question as to why the NYT would all of a sudden promote transparency and truth in media, by assisting Wikileaks in "spreading the word"; and that people around the World would not pause for one moment and question the basis of this incongruous relationship.
On the surface, nothing proves that Wikileaks was a CIA covert operation. However, given the corporate media's cohesive and structured relationship to US intelligence, not to mention the links of individual journalists to the military-national security establishment, the issue of a CIA sponsored PsyOp must necessarily be addressed.
Wikileaks Social and Corporate Entourage
Wikileaks and The Economist have also entered into what seems to be a contradictory relationship. Wikileaks founder and editor Julian Assange was granted in 2008 The Economist's New Media Award.
The Economist has a close relationship to Britain's financial elites. It is an establishment news outlet, which has consistently supported Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. It bears the stamp of the Rothschild family. Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972-1989. His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist's board. The Rothschild family also has a sizeable shareholder interest in The Economist.
The broader question is why would Julian Assange receive the support from Britain's foremost establishment news outfit which has consistently been involved in media disinformation?
Are we not dealing with a case of "manufactured dissent", whereby the process of supporting and rewarding Wikileaks for its endeavors, becomes a means of controlling and manipulating the Wikileaks project, while at the same time embedding it into the mainstream media.
It is also worth mentioning another important link. Julian Assange's lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), a major London elite law, happens to be the legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust. While this in itself does prove anything, it should nonetheless be examined in the broader context of Wikileaks' social and corporate entourage: the NYT, the CFR, The Economist, Time Magazine, Forbes, Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), etc.
Manufacturing Dissent
Wikileaks has the essential features of a process of "manufactured dissent". It seeks to expose government lies. It has released important information on US war crimes. But once the project becomes embedded in the mould of mainstream journalism, it is used as an instrument of media disinformation:
"It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent. To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition... To be effective, however, the process of "manufacturing dissent" must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement " (See Michel Chossudovsky, "Manufacturing Dissent": the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites, September 2010) What this examination of the Wikileaks project also suggests is that the mechanics of New World Order propaganda, particularly with regard to its military agenda, has become increasingly sophisticated.
It no longer relies on the outright suppression of the facts regarding US-NATO war crimes. Nor does it require that the reputation of government officials at the highest levels, including the Secretary of State, be protected. New World Order politicians are in a sense "disposable". They can be replaced. What must be protected and sustained are the interests of the economic elites, which control the political apparatus from behind the scenes.
In the case of Wikileaks, the facts are contained in a databank; many of those facts, particularly those pertaining to foreign governments serve US foreign policy interests. Other facts tend, on the other hand to discredit the US administration.
All these facts are selectively redacted, they are then "analyzed" and interpreted by a media which serves the economic elites.
While the numerous facts contained in the Wikileaks data bank are accessible, the broader public will not normally take the trouble to consult and scan through the Wikileaks databank. The public will read the redacted selections and interpretations presented in major news outlets.
A partial and biased picture is presented. The redacted version is accepted by public opinion because it is based on what is heralded as a reliable source, when in fact what is presented in the pages of major newspapers and on network TV is a carefully crafted and convoluted distortion of the truth.
Limited forms of critical debate and "transparency" are tolerated while also enforcing broad public acceptance of the basic premises of US foreign policy, including its "Global War on Terrorism". With regard to a large segment of the US antiwar movement, this strategy seems to have succeeded: "We are against war but we support the "war on terrorism".
What this means is that truth in media can only be reached by dismantling the propaganda apparatus, --i.e. breaking the legitimacy of the corporate media which sustains the broad interests of the economic elites as well America's global military design.
In turn, we must ensure that the campaign against Wikileaks in the U.S., using the 1917 Espionage Act, will not be utilized as a means to wage a campaign to control the internet.
|
Please support Global Research
Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.
Your endorsement is greatly appreciated
|
| Subscribe to the Global Research e-newsletter |
|
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2010
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22389 |
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment