Monday, November 29, 2010

Wikileaks demolishes the US-Israel-Zionist conspiracy


You can shake a hand in public, yet plan subterfuge and assassination in private.

Shakespeare had Hamlet write this revelation down immediately upon his tablets: “That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.”

At least we’re sure it may be so in the Middle East.

It has to be the ultimate in open government, transparency and freedom of information.

All democracies preach it, yet still they seek to control precisely what should be made available to the people.

This is understandable.

Official secrets in the wrong hands imperil lives and compromise national security.

But there is no harm at all in discovering that President Barack Obama ‘prefers to look East rather than West’, and ‘has no feelings for Europe’; that he critical of David Cameron; that the US spies on the UN; that North Korean leader Kim Jong-il suffers from epilepsy; that Russia has become a ‘virtual mafia state’; that Libyan leader Colonel Gaddhafi's full-time nurse is a ‘hot blond’; that Germany’s Chancellor is referred to as Angela ‘Teflon’ Merkel; or that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is ‘driven by paranoia’.

Such things constitute political trivial pursuits: they were always widely suspected; now that they are common knowledge, nothing will change.

It is, however, surprising that Alan Duncan is the subject of an intelligence dossier and that he even features on US radar.

The release of several hundred thousand classified cables from the US State Department is embarrassing for politicians and diplomats, but it is all very entertaining for everyone else.

Except, perhaps, for Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, who is probably himself now a target for assassination.

But it’s very difficult to see what all the fuss is about.

Anyone with an ounce of psychological discernment or insight knows that nasty things are said behind one’s back, and that politicians are particularly predisposed to dissing their colleagues and counterparts.

But what is rather more interesting is that Arab nations – including the Wahhabi King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia – have been urging the US to attack Iran and end its nuclear weapons programme:

Al-Jubeir recalled the King's frequent exhortations to the US to attack Iran and so put an end to its nuclear weapons program. "He told you to cut off the head of the snake," he recalled to the Charge', adding that working with the US to roll back Iranian influence in Iraq is a strategic priority for the King and his government.
Perhaps, again, it ought to come as no surprise to us that Sunni Muslims are seeking to wipe their Shi’a cousins off the map.

King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain has also argued forcefully for taking action to terminate Iran's nuclear programme: '...by whatever means necessary. That programme must be stopped. The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.’

Zeid Rifai, then president of the Jordanian senate, told a senior US official: ‘Bomb Iran, or live with an Iranian bomb. Sanctions, carrots, incentives won't matter.’

But it gets even more interesting to learn that Yemeni government has been involved in the systematic cover-up of US strikes on al-Qaeda strongholds. Yemen is split virtually 50/50 Sunni/Shi’a, and they clearly do not see al-Qaeda as the route to the worldwide caliphate. Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh told Gen David Petraeus, then commander of US forces in the Middle East: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours."

So it’s not all some evil US-Jewish-Zionist plot to humiliate Islam and eradicate Allah.

Indeed, there is Arab-Israeli consensus that neither wishes to be blown to kingdom come in a puff of Iranian nuclear smoke: Israel’s Ehud Barak ("Fate of world rests on stopping Iran") clearly sings the same acrostic psalm as King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia ("cut off the head of the snake").

Bombing Iranian nuclear facilities has hitherto been viewed by Muslims of all shades as a desperate last resort of the ‘crusading Christians’ to prevent Islam rising to challenge Western hegemony.

But these communications don’t leave much wriggle room.

They reveal the manifest contradictions between a state’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors: foreign policy is not what it seems, and no amount of openness, transparency or FOI requests will bring to light what is taking place in the darkness.

We have long known that politicians may be ‘economical with the truth’, but on the matter of the Middle East we discover a plethora of bare-faced lies that make Tony Blair’s ‘sexed-up’ dossier on Iraq look like a picnic in the park.

His Grace is not disposed to conspiracies or to believe in secret plots.

But Wikileaks is a whistleblower’s website, and they appear to have an awful lot of whistles to blow. As these revelations reverberate around the world, it is evident that they serve a purpose.

It is worth considering what and whose.

26 Comments:

Anonymous TheObserver said...

Hmm. Interesting.

29 November 2010 at 10:07  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

"Except, perhaps, for Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, who is probably himself now a target for assassination"

I truly hope that you are mistaken.

29 November 2010 at 10:11  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Cui bono, Your Grace?

By way of an answer, draw up a list of the enemies of the United States in descending order, paying special attention to nations with advanced cyber warfare capability.

Just guessing.

29 November 2010 at 10:22  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

What I fail to understand is that the US made an enormous fuss about a youth who hacked into their Defence computers, but apparently did no actual harm other than exposing the weakness of the system, whilst they don't seem to have managed to catch anyone for this far more serious problem.

29 November 2010 at 11:36  
Blogger Span Ows said...

EP, that's because it's insiders passing the information OUT rather than anyone hacking IN.

Cui bono indeed bluedog!

29 November 2010 at 11:49  
Blogger Gnostic said...

The Sunnis hate the Shi'ites and vice versa so hands up anyone who is really surprised by this particular "leak"?

29 November 2010 at 12:01  
Anonymous Preacher said...

Et tu Brute?
Some things never change.

29 November 2010 at 12:11  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

We now live in a world where it is increasingly difficult to have secrets. The internet has provide the means by which limitless amounts of information can not only be made public but archived, indexed and searched in a fraction of the time that might have been possible before; we should get used to this. Secrets are part of the old world; openness and transparency are the order of today. It is sensible to assume that every comment that you ever make has the possibility of one day being recalled.

In this new world order the web has led the way not only as the repository of information but with open source collaboration has provided a new model on which to generate future advances in science and commerce, rather than the selfish exploitation of intellectual property and proprietary knowledge.

What is on offer is a world where we share and pool and where openness is a prerequisite. There seems to be an appetite for this with the huge uptake of social networking we are all becoming more comfortable with exposing ourselves.

Gossip and tittle-tattle will of course persist and in the world of diplomacy some secrets will still be necessary, but in general openness must be a better course to follow than secrecy.

29 November 2010 at 12:31  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

So far I have learnt little from the leaks that either surprises or outrages me.

If anything, I am mildly re-assured that there is a lot of common sense and good judgement happening once you get past the politician speak of the likes of President Obama and the op-ed pages of the liberal mainstream press.

What this does throw into contrast however is the lack of common sense in our chattering classes.

Those who insist that civilisation will fall unless we accord human rights to those who manifestly wish us ill, require us to admit all manner of unpleasant folk and make us spent a fortune which we can scarcely afford, keeping them under surveillance rather than imprison them or send them somewhere else.

Simultaneously, the same apologists insist that civilisation will also fall unless we allow our sensitive intelligence information to be made freely available to our enemies.

Do such folk ever ask themselves what is to be done to practically and effectively disrupt those who despise us and our values? Is openness in such matters always a good thing? If you listen to the New York Times or the Guardian then they seem to believe it is.

29 November 2010 at 12:42  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

We now live in a world where it is increasingly difficult to have secrets. The internet has provide the means by which limitless amounts of information can not only be made public but archived, indexed and searched in a fraction of the time that might have been possible before; we should get used to this. Secrets are part of the old world; openness and transparency are the order of today. It is sensible to assume that every comment that you ever make has the possibility of one day being recalled.

In this new world order the web has led the way not only as the repository of information but with open source collaboration has provided a new model on which to generate future advances in science and commerce, rather than the selfish exploitation of intellectual property and proprietary knowledge.

What is on offer is a world where we share and pool and where openness is a prerequisite. There seems to be an appetite for this with the huge uptake of social networking we are all becoming more comfortable with exposing ourselves.

Gossip and tittle-tattle will of course persist and in the world of diplomacy some secrets will still be necessary, but in general openness must be a better course to follow than secrecy.

29 November 2010 at 13:29  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

Do we have any reason to believe that the offending information released through Wikileaks is any more credible or reliable than the customary guff we get through the usual media outlets? I think the 'Cui bono?' question is a valid one..

29 November 2010 at 14:16  
Anonymous Ever Anon said...

BBC-World and NPR are the news channels I listen to. They're reporting this in lurid detail at every opportunity.

"Cui bono" indeed.

Oh - and what else is going on while we're (supposedly) distracted?

29 November 2010 at 15:38  
Blogger Kate Powell said...

Isn't there something in the Bible about everything that's been whispered being made known?

29 November 2010 at 16:02  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Alan Duncan is obviously worthy of a dossier. In his time with Marc Rich in Singapore he had a very special oil deal with Pakistan courtesy of his Oxford contemporary and fellow Union hack Benazir Bhutto.

His connections in the oil trading business have even aroused interest in our controlled press. His connection with fellow Oxonian William Hague of the "Magdalen Machine" and their time as flatmates is also of interest to any intelligence organisation.

These Wikileaks are tame. The German foreign minister is gay, leader of the FDP, and totally incompetent who spent his time negotiating a coalition agreement trying to remove US nuclear missiles from Germany.

Maybe the US wanted to see if we have an equally inept Foreign Secretary.....the possibility is worth exploring

29 November 2010 at 16:22  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Labour have a blank sheet and the interweb is full of diplomatic confidentials , a conspiracy ?.
However I thank Graham Davies for brooching the third position , in that all would be well and good if people were totally commited to a common purpose without the things he dislikes on individual beliefs.
The game of my tyranny is better than yours, and on until we all agree to the best tyranny available shold be agreed unto is marxist par excellence .

Whilst I must admitt wikileaks has a certain delcious post 9/11 interest , I have doubts and reservations about what it is supposed to achieve .Those people/groups who wish to use it to put certain spin on matters may see a stick unto a hornets nest , they may of course be wantng to make some sort of platform of global governance as collective politics doesnt reach the right conclusions .
Both the UK and the USA goverments have condemd the leaks , perhaps they hope it would both liberate and embarras , and yet leaks such as this show no respect for the quality of diplomacy in dealing with national differences and transformations .
Far from liberating those living in tents and huts in the rule of the all powerfull what wikileaks seeks to embarras , it may have the opposite effect.

I suspect the shock will be worrying the G organisations together with the other problems that have come with the IT revolution .Wikileaks may have done a better job if it had revealed the personal wealth of corrupt officials in oppresed countires that laugh in the face of democracy , rather than have a go at those countries that at least run a workable form of it .

29 November 2010 at 17:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My phone is tapped & my lips are chapped from whispering through the fence.
You know every move I make, or is that just coincidence.
Would it help to make my life a little less like jail,
if I promised to make prints & tapes & send them through the mail?"

Larry Norman.

29 November 2010 at 17:57  
Anonymous neoconsarecommies said...

There is no trust in Semitic nations, they squabble with each other constantly, and Arabs and Persians want to kill each other.

How does any of the above refute America being in control of Israel?

What anti-zionists in America desire is not to be involved in any of this Semitic squabbling.

Anti-Zionists want to model our nation after nations more like Scandinavia, societies based on trust, based on wearing your allegiance on your sleeve. No underhandedness, no backstabbing.

Semitic nations are genetically incapable of trust. The jews and Israel are genetic cousins of the Semitic arabs. Down to their genes they display the same distrust, the same intrigue, the same merchant, any lie for a sale, mentality.

The US, being still a mostly white European Gentile nation is genetically above the everyday affairs of the Semites.

29 November 2010 at 19:36  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Neo @19.36, since when were the Persians a semitic people?

29 November 2010 at 19:55  
Anonymous neoconsarecommies said...

Ever since residing in an area American's should not give a shit about.

I doubt you are Persian so it's not like you care. Just a bunch of superstitious muslims, add in Israels and Jews, they all look and act the same to me.

29 November 2010 at 20:12  
Blogger steve said...

It is more than Sunnis hate the Shi'ites.

Note that the Saudis talk of Persians.

And Persians have been kicking Arab backside for millennia. Well before Islam.

The Iranians have been causing "trouble" in the Gulf States for decades.

29 November 2010 at 21:24  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Neo @ 20.12, 'they all look and act the same to me.'

Time to check your prescription, there are some attractive discounts on offer at the optometrists these days.

29 November 2010 at 22:29  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Nice to see the Saudis and the Iranians are supporting Movember.

30 November 2010 at 10:59  
Anonymous round zebra rug said...

some things will never change..

30 November 2010 at 16:14  
OpenID andreasmoser said...

These WikiLeaks show that Israel is the only country in the Middle East with an open and honest foreign policy: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/wikileaks-and-israel/ . A lesson which we should keep in mind for further Middle East negotiations.

1 December 2010 at 14:49  
Anonymous Oswin said...

To those who have ears to hear, and a small, yellow, leech-like fish to hand:

''...the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.''

My apologies to the the late Douglas Adams; but the man sure knew what he was talking about!

2 December 2010 at 03:07  
Blogger Alex said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9 December 2010 at 02:59  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older