A tale of Wikileaks and war propaganda

This text will be replaced

Broadcast of July 28, 2010. Part 1 of 1 » Download mp3: click here

29 July 2010 | Permalink | comments: 1

Share |

Categories: [ Afghanistan, Vaccination, Wikileaks ]

In tonight's broadcast we take a critical look at the media circus surrounding the latest Wikileaks release.

Breaking with usual practice, the Wikileaks organisation have released their latest leaks directly through the mainstream press with simultaneous publications in The Guardian, Der Spiegel and the New York Times.

A disturbing outcome is that information in the leaked documents is being used by the media to incriminate Pakistan in the Afghan war.

The Pakistan connection was the top story on the BBC World News on the day the documents were released. The Pakistan Government is vehemently rejecting these accusations and a Pakistani government spokesperson said that the whole affair was an attempt to sabotage the US/Pakistan relationship. This comes at a time when the US is stepping up predator drone attacks against targets in Pakistan.

Clearly, there are multiple agendas at work here.

In the second half of the show I am joined by Josh Jackson to review the new blockbuster film Inception.

As usual, we cover all the major breaking stories on our twitter stream. Happy listening!

Related Links

Anti-vaccine group a threat

No Minister: 90% of web snoop document censored to stop 'premature unnecessary debate'

Australian Government to spy on all internet users

Is the latest Wikileaks release serving the military industrial complex?

Leaky Vessels: Wikileaks "Revelations" Will Comfort Warmongers, Confirm Conventional Wisdom

Alex Jones: Media puts spin on WikiLeaks

'WikiLeaks story soft, coverage a 9/11-like lie'

Glimpses of Bin Laden: Now WikiLeaks reveals Al Qaeda boss was seen at village meetings - despite CIA claims that they were clueless

Weekend of Pakistan drone attacks leaves 35 dead

John Young and Wayne Madsen discuss wikileaks on the Alex Jones show

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is 'annoyed' by 9/11 truth

Comments

In his August 10th article on the case of an impending Iran war, Webster G. Tarpley wrote; “Wikileaks And Assange: Part Of The War Buildup Against the backdrop of these confused alarms of war, a group of intelligence community provocateurs calling themselves Wikileaks saw fit to publish a document dump of more than 90,000 low level specimens of US cable traffic from Afghanistan, primarily of the secret and sub-secret classifications. No scandals against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Obama, Biden, Gates, or any other top officials were contained among these dispatches. Instead, the documents tend to support the CIA’s thesis that ‘Osama bin Laden’ is an actual living person and a powerful enemy of the United States– a manifest absurdity. Assange is also on record as saying that he finds challenges to the US official story of September 11, 2001 an annoyance. Assange’s actions are evidently inspired by some combination of George Soros, Cass Sunstein, and Samantha Power of the Obama National Security Council. A separate essay on this important theme will be forthcoming shortly. For the moment it is enough to note that the mental strategic map which emerges from the Wikileaks document dump faithfully mirrors the intentions of some of the most dangerous factions in the US intelligence community. The interpretations of the document dump which were conveniently trumpeted by such ruling class news organs as the New York Times, the London Guardian, and Der Spiegel of Germany conveniently stress that the Afghanistan war is futile, while the real enemies of the United States and the Western world in general are the treacherous backstabbers of Pakistan who support the Taliban and kill American soldiers, and of course the Iranians, who do everything possible to defeat the US presence in the areas of western Afghanistan closest to their borders. In short, anyone creating an imperialist policy on the basis of the lessons of the Wikileaks document dump would tend to converge on something like the Devine plan, along with vigorous measures against both Pakistan and Iran. The much-touted document dump, which has been abundantly publicized by the controlled media of the world, is thus revealed as a CIA mind control operation in the tradition of Daniel Ellsberg and the 1971 Pentagon papers, which was a similar limited hang out of self-serving disinformation by the spook community, designed to manipulate public opinion.” Read the full article here: http://www.infowars.com/webster-tarpley-iran-war-on-multiple-fronts/ Note that during the July 26th interview on Larry King Live, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OSNrrDmUDY Assange is asked by King: “Do you always know the sources?” Assange: “We usually always do not know the sources. We are specialised in, in fact not knowing who our sources are. We’ll specialise in, instead of verifying sources, verifying the documents themselves, that is how we’ve been able to protect our sources over the past four years, is by trying to not understand who they are but rather just concentrating on the material that they are bringing to us.” Would such a system lend itself to intelligence agency set-ups? Have Wikileaks been the unwitting facilitators of a “CIA mind control operation”, or are Wikileaks a group of “intelligence community provocateurs” as Tarpley claims?

By Michael B on 2010 08 11 - 10:58:49

In order to leave a comment you may need to register and sign in.

Recent Comments

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/dane-wigington-on-infowars-4-4-13/#comment-33658

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:31:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:28:20
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.soldierhugs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Geoengineering.pdf

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 11 - 09:19:23
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,

the video you linked is a really old conglomerate of all sorts of claims that have been debunked ad nauseam.

What do you think is the ultimate proof for the existence of chemtrails?

Why should we have to assume there is such a thing like chemtrails? How are they different from contrails?

By Josh on 2013 04 10 - 06:59:34
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://realnewsworldwide.com/2008/09/10/chemtrails-ultimate-proof/

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 04 09 - 16:31:36
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

If you open the link you will see the reference to chemtrail area forecasts. The other link I wish to post is refused by the “Truth news” which claims it may be SPAM and “will be moderated”, probably because it mentions chemtrails in the link. However, I will try again by separating the words. http://www.chemtrail forecast.com/main.html

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 09:02:16
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

about the link you posted - where is the relevance in the discussion about persistent contrails?

By Josh on 2013 03 13 - 08:50:08
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

http://www.haarpstatus.com/status.html

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 13 - 08:44:15
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

after you consistently refused to accept the fact that fuel combustion generates more water than the equivalent of fuel burnt - even when a Qantas pilot confirmed this - I am highly skeptical of your “aviation life experience”. I hope you understand that.

So there are more explanations needed before your claims can be taken seriously.

1. How did you determine that the ambient conditions at the upper troposphere were not conducive to the formation of contrails this summer?

2. How did you determine the causal connection between trails and lack of rain?

3. How did you determine the altitude of the low trail that you saw? How can you be sure it was below the cumulus? Why not above (remember: 3D viewing up to 160m max)? Any pictures maybe?

If you want to do REAL research on the Internet, I strongly suggest to repeat every search query that you issue with the word “debunked” appended. That is the way to do proper research because you see both sides and their arguments. Don’t just fall for sensational claims.

Unfortunately, the Internet is loaded with bunk.

By Josh on 2013 03 02 - 18:06:10
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Josh Anonymous,

You apparently do not do much research. Notice how, over the Eastern Australian summer, there have been many chemtrails coincident with usual weather patterns where obvious rain should have been the outcome had the chemtrails not been laid, and it was not, and this during the season when ambient conditions are not conducive to the formation of contrails. Chemtrails are entirely different to what you term “persistent contrails” as you would know if you had sufficient aviation life experience. You may try to explain how there was recently, and I have observed the same many times before, a chemtrail below a layer of fair weather Cu at 8,000 ft and how this could possibly occur without the laws of physics and thermodynamics being turned on their head. I suggest that you do an Internet search for the activities of Bill Gates and geoengineering.

By Leonard Clampett on 2013 03 02 - 13:51:00
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.