RT News

Friday, December 17, 2010

Who is likely to get hurt by Wikileaks?

The shameless USraeli villains aren’t concerned about Wikilieaks exposing their designs, dirty works or violations of human rights and international laws. There is nothing Wikileaks can add more to the already known US crimes in Iraq, the torture at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Base, US-sponsored renditions and the extrajudicial assassinations using unmanned drones. The US support for the so-called civilian contractors, the likes of Blackwater, to kill people with impunity. Or the Americans subsidizing Israeli heinous crimes and violations while Israel remains in breach of 39 UN Security Council Resolutions. On the other hand, Wikileaks will be extremely damaging to USraeli plans and designs in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Sudan, Yemen, Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, especially if names of local agents are put on the Internet. These local agents are currently operating using USraeli protection and covers.

The Arabs are known for having patience but will usually exact severe punishment when they get the chance to do so. Following the collapse of the pro-British Iraqi government on 14.07.1958, the corpses of members of the regime were hanged or dragged through the streets of Baghdad. Similarly, President Sadat of Egypt was mowed down by his own soldiers on October 6, 1981 following his visit to Israel. The tactics have changed now with people using car bombs and suicide belts to assassinate those whom they think are betraying their cause. These measures are like trying to “putting out fire with fire”. The hope on the US to introduce democracy and good governments was dashed when the Americans continued their support for the corrupt Egyptian and Saudi Autocracies while at the same time undermines democratically-elected governments in Palestine and Iran.
It is rather sad to predict that that the violence in the world in 2011 will intensify and continues unabated since there is no power to bring the USraeli villains and war criminals to justice and make them pay for their crimes.

Iraqi infrastructure was destroyed by US!

Mr Donald Rumsfeld asked his military not to waste good ammunition on the already destroyed Afghanistan and keep your biggest bombs to destroy Iraq. The power stations, the transformers and the network were destroyed. So are the sewage system and water pipes by penetration bombs. Precison bombs destroyed 158 bridges on the Tigris and the Euphrates.The biggest non-conventional bombs of 15 tons of high explossives were also used in Iraq. Jewish Paul Wolfowitz has predicted that Bechtel Corporation and Haliburton will re-build Iraq with Iraq oil money. In our area of Haifa street we are getting three hours of electricity a-day. We do pay a private guy who is having a noisy diesel generator spewing thick smoke to supply us with extra power. The wiring are like overcooked spaghetti winding near all buildings. The government of local agents who entered Iraq behind the US tanks, are filling their pockets with money for phantom projects and for the supply of items on papers only. The Americans love corrupt people as they are ready to betray their countries.The crimes in Iraq will haunt the Americans for generations.


There are some genuine humane people across this world from all walks of life. There are Americans and Israelis who are not happy with the fascist practices of their respective governments. The soldier who passed the information to Wikileaks was an American 'hero' who ended up in jail and lost everything.

The Israelis were and are in control of US foreign policy. Not matter what the American political zombies think, theirs soldier have marched on Baghdad to Israaeli drums and have paid dearly for it. One can easily say that Iraq has bankrupted America and gave them a very bloody lesson. Over 4400 military personnel have died (not counting the civilian contractors) and 30000 were wounded.


Adnan Drawash, Iraq Occupation Times

==============

Julian Assange isn't that careless


It is said that Tareq Aziz, Iraq former foreign minister, has deposited as an insurance documents relating to his dealings with the CIA and the supply of chemical weapons to Iraq from the US and its European allies. Tareq Azis has authorised his lawyers in Switzerland to release these documents if he was to be executed. For this reason he may die in prison but not executed.
Similarly, Julian Assange has distributed 100000 coded copies of the 250000 documents wikileaks has and will be released if the US asks the MOSSAD or the CIA to assassinate him. Don't forget that Mr Assange refused to publish names of US local agents and collborators. His death may change this position. Right now Wikileaks site is out of order.

==

Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange (A statement from Michael Moore)

Tuesday, December 14th, 2010

Friends,

Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

**Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

**The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal." A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.


**Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

**Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the @!#$."

**Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

**Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this. But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!"). WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo. That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings." Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented.)

Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please -- never, ever believe the "official story." And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com



Adnan Darwash, Iraq Occupation Times

====


Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that claiming former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was a mistake.


In his new memoirs titled "Known and Unknown," Rumsfeld also admitted that his Iraq troop decision may have been wrong.

He blamed the heavy bloodshed in war-ravaged Iraq on "too many hands on the steering wheel."

In his book, Rumsfeld recalled one of his TV interviews, during which he was asked about WMD. He acknowledged that he made a mistake then.

"Recalling the CIA's designation of various 'suspect' WMD sites in Iraq, I replied: 'We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.' My words have been quoted many times by critics of the war as an example of how the Bush administration misled the public,” he said.

Still he backed Washington's invasion of Iraq in the wake of the September 11 attacks as incremental and not rushed.

Rumsfeld, who is one of the most controversial figures of the Bush administration, also defended his leadership in the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, saying he had no regrets.

The former US Defense Secretary, however, defended tough interrogation techniques, but rejected waterboarding.

"I did not believe it would be appropriate for anyone in defense department custody to be waterboarded or stripped and subjected to cold temperatures, and I rejected these techniques," he writes.

Rumsfeld further criticized the former US secretaries of state, saying Condoleezza Rice lacked experience and Colin Powell showed poor management skills.

He also took aim at the incumbent US President, Barack Obama, for blaming the Bush administration for setting up Guantanamo detention facility but having failed to close it himself. According to Rumsfeld, Obama is pursuing many of the Bush policies.

The US-led war in Iraq has claimed the lives of over one million Iraqis and left over 4,700 foreign troops dead.

No comments: