Is the latest Wikileaks release serving the military industrial complex?

The latest wikileaks release appears to be directly targeted at Pakistan - at least that is the way it is being spun in the news.

Specifically they are saying that Pakistan is colluding with the Taliban.

The Pakistan connection was the top story on the BBC World News yesterday. Extraordinarily, the news presenter admitted that the US military may indeed welcome the release of this information!

The Pakistan Government is vehemently rejecting the accusations of supporting the Taliban. On the BBC the 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.

The documents showed Pakistan actively collaborated with the Afghan insurgency, the New York Times reported.

The reports also suggest:

  • The Taliban has had access to portable heat-seeking missiles to shoot at aircraft.
  • A secret US unit of army and navy special forces has been engaged on missions to "capture or kill" top insurgents.
  • Many civilian casualties - caused by Taliban roadside bombs and Nato missions that went wrong - have gone unreported.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Bridget Kendall says that although the documents reveal no dramatic new insights, they show the difficulties of the war and the civilan death toll.

No dramatic new insights? Meanwhile Washington gives wikileaks a slap on the wrist - calling it "irresponsible".

I'm not sure what this really indicates, but it appears that the information provided by Wikileaks is being used as part of a bigger agenda.

Hereward Fenton

We don't know who Wiki-leaks serves

Regardless, the information they have just released appears very useful to me. Those of us who read blogs like this one may not be surprised at revelations of Pakistani ISI collaboration with the Afgani Taliban, but this is not something that is covered by the mass media outlets where many Americans still get their news.

Having this information put out there so starkly is bound to shake things up, which can be a good thing considering the complacency with which the war in Afghanistan has been regarded by much of the population. And there may be many opportunities to talk about why this kind of double dealing is going on, about how this country is really run.

There is a danger in the 9/11 truth movement of talking among ourselves while ignoring opportunities to talk to the general public about the societal framework that makes things like the 9/11 attacks possible. This may be one of those opportunities, and we should not let it pass by.


However you could equally argue that this information is providing the military with a good reason to step up hostilities against Pakistan and doing so in a way which bypasses any normal journalistic checks and balances.

This was the general thrust of the statement from the Pakistani spokesperson - ie. this is actually war propaganda in the guise of an "intel leak".

sorry. I disagree...the US

sorry. I disagree...the US needs Pakistan very much..that they put with all this shit from Pakistan ought to tell you something.


yeah, all those Pakistani predator drone attacks on LA are really bumming me out.

We should be prepared to explain HOW the USofA was seduced...

...into these wars.

...the first step that we should execute is to explain that we were lied into war...

...the second step is to educate people about "false-flag-ops" starting with the Spanish American War...

...part of the second step is to cover Robert Stinnett and his book about Pearl Harbor...this is HUGE!

...the third step is to corellate 9/11 with Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin Incident and The Bouncing Babies.

...the fourth step is to introduce citizens to the WTC7 issue and expand it into all three collapses/CDs...

...the fifth step is to explain how NORAD did not intercept the airliners...

...the sixth step is to tie in the Anthrax Attacks and the Patriot Act with 9/11...

...the LAST STEP is to discuss what did, or did not hit the Pentagon...PUUUUHLEASE!...WAY LAST!

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
kingston, WA

The latest wikileaks release

The latest wikileaks release appears to be directly targeted at Pakistan - at least that is the way it is being spun in the news.

911oz..... I think you're reading this wrong and maybe not reading enough alternative press - . The thing that stands out in the reports for me is the huge number of civilian deaths caused by US military actions. I've started to read some of the reports

Another thing is the duplicitous nature of ISI given its deep involvement with the Taliban. Remember it was ISI that forwarded money to Mohammed Atta. A high level ISI operative was in Washington during the time of the 9/11 attacks. The press will try to spin this in its typical corporate-military friendly way, but it's not going to work. Assange, for all the disparaging commentary he's taken here, does provide a haven for whistle blowers...the proof is in the pudding. The wiki reports are a direct repudiation of the nonsense reportage of Sebastian Unger and his foolish documentary...foolish because it paints a false picture of the realities of war, especially for civilians and the innocent. I predict that this series of leaks will spawn more leaks...and we do know where that will ultimately lead...

yeah but...

That wasn't the way they reported it on the BBC - and that's the point I was trying to make. And it's not just the BBC, its also the main thrust of this front page story from New York Times:

Pakistan Aids Insurgency in Afghanistan, Reports Assert

Americans fighting the war in Afghanistan have long harbored strong suspicions that Pakistan’s military spy service has guided the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants, according to a trove of secret military field reports made public Sunday.

The documents, made available by an organization called WikiLeaks, suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders.


"Remember it was ISI that forwarded money to Mohammed Atta. A high level ISI operative was in Washington during the time of the 9/11 attacks. The press will try to spin this in its typical corporate-military friendly way, but it's not going to work."

The MIC would like the TM to blame Pakistan for 911, not least because it wants to effect 'change' in that country. The TM would find itself subverted in the process; goals would converge. Whoever 'Atta' was, he did not wire the WTC, and has not been involved in the cover up.

"I predict that this series of leaks will spawn more leaks...and we do know where that will ultimately lead..."


From over a month ago:
Pakistani agents 'funding and training Afghan Taliban' - LSE

Great analysis

Only one thing missing from story - Wiki got Manning arrested a few months ago instead of protecting him, so that tells who is behind Wiki - the US government. Anything Wiki writes is artful propaganda.

It was not wikileaks who

It was not wikileaks who exposed Manning but a cowardly hacker, Adrian Lamo, associated with them.


is indeed a cowardly snitch (unworthy of the title 'hacker'), but he's associated with Kevin Poulsen from and the government. He's one of those 'turners', e.g. hacker assets the government can use after arresting and blackmailing them. (offering a 'deal') Poulsen was himself once ratted out by another hacker, if I recall correctly.

These men might have the knowledge and wherewithal to help the authorities subvert Wikileaks' anonymity safeguards.

You go ID

well said

also in the category of "lets keep our eye on the ball":

Where was the head of the ISI, Mahmoud Ahmad, while 3 skyscrapers were being blown to bits?

Where was the head of the Senate Intel commt. Bob Graham?

Where was the the head of the House Intel commt. Porter Goss?

Oh yeah, they were all hanging out together in Washington.

These "leaks" are just more propaganda with multiple uses and purposes. They will be used to send ground troops, (should say more gt's) into Pakistan. The grossly obese pigs slurping at the MIC trough will gorge yet further. And Wleaks gets more pub., maybe a little more street cred for the gullible.

And the honeypot goes sour. They have the werewithal,and after JA's comments the apparent intention, to be a thorn in the side of the truth movement.

Sorry, didn't see JPaulis mention Ahmad, when influence

device almost made me pass tea through my nose, i stopped reading the rest of the comments momentarily to respond.

Neo Con Playbook

This is straight out of the NeoCon Playbook. Certainly some of this leaked info has some meat and credibility, just as any gatekeeper will do. But the overall effect is to redirect and give reasoning for a broader military campaign in Pakistan and further development of the Iran Attack. All the documents in the "leak' are digital format, the easiest to forge. Forgery, a neocon specialty; i.e. "Yellow Cake Uranium." The fact that NY Times along with other mainstream establishment propaganda news had detailed reports on 90,000 pages ready to go immediately after the "leak" is blatant, including points for readers to focus on (look here, don't look there). The big leak and subsequent reporting also provides an opportunity for mainstream news to build back up some of the credibility they've lost. There is probably plenty of great info to be gleaned from this "leak" but certainly we should all be weary of jumping on a mainstream news band wagon. These establishment criminals are Hegelians in their strategy, and this massive leak is a perfect catalyst for a major military policy redirect - crisis = opportunity. Wikileaks may just be a useful idiot in this situation.

Wiki Looks Worse All the Time

Wiki purposefully gave the three major MSM papers - NYT, Guardian & Der Spiegel - two weeks advance look, so that they could summarize and spin the leaks. Now why do you give these 3 papers two weeks and why do these three papers work in concert to print stories on the same day, in coordination with dumping the material on-line? Does any of that make sense? ... except from a power-orchestrated context?

For those who say that Wiki, whatever its faults, is an improvement... you cannot make that leap. The proof will be in the Facts.

Here are a couple of Facts:

1. WIki is fast becoming the darling of the MSM - Assange just interviewed by Time Magazine.,8599,2006789,00.html
(Assange is now more Mainstream than Chomsky - you think Chomsky is a positive difference maker too?)

2. Manning claims to leak killer material to Wiki that will embarrass US Government to no end. WIki denies it received such documents from Manning but admits it got the shoot-em-up video from Manning, and Manning gets arrested on the basis of this sensational video. Shortly after this huge leak to Wiki (the mother load), Wiki denies receiving it and releases its own mother load that is entirely controlled and spun by MSM.

3. The Wiki spin is distinctively to blame Muslim States. And America's biggest mistake, in the view of Wiki and its MSM supporters, is that America is sullying itself by associating too closely with Bad Muslims, instead of being more pure in its fight. This same argument was made by the Left during the Cold War, but it never stopped America from going hand-in-glove with Third World ruthless dictators.

4. Assange over-the-top slammed questioning 9/11. Now how can he do that with a straight face? He could easily dodge the question by saying that Wiki does not speculate or editorialize on information it does not have.

Think about it for two seconds .... if you are in power and you know you are going to have to deal with whistleblower leakers anyway -- do you want to be in control of that - or not? Please.

If you are going to be in control of whistleblowing leaks - then you have to establish some anti-Establishment credibility - and most people still believe that NYT, Guardian, NPR, Time and Der Spiegel will swing against the Establishment, given the proper chance. Now do you personally know that to be true or false? Please.

If Wiki is an arm of the Powers-that-Be to control Whistleblowers and to control leaking of info (where the Powers have all the Info), that is not a Good Thing. That is part of the Farce.

You cannot just sit back and say --- well this is better than nothing. You cannot assume a net positive here. Now if Wiki were actually a Farce and exposed as an intelligence Farce -- that would be very revealing to the Public, who finally learned to lose confidence in the idea that the Government actually watches over the Big Banks. Exposing such corruption does wake people up.

Right now -- Assange has all the appearances of being a complete Fraud. BTW --- notice his criminal conviction and arrest record. There is a long history of Governments making deals with talented criminals to work for them.

It's starting to sound like conspiracy theory around here

For instance:

(Now why do you give these 3 papers two weeks and why do these three papers work in concert to print stories on the same day, in coordination with dumping the material on-line? Does any of that make sense? .). perhaps because it expanded the story exposure exponentialy... look how much greater coverage the story got....and more people than ever have now heard of wikileaks
Your other points:

1-WIki is fast becoming the darling of the MSM....... all the better if it eventually becomes the trojan horse... the real issue here is that wiki is not onboard with 911 truth so why not put some energy into converting them. We have tried Chomsky and Goodman ad nauseum, why not put the same effort into Assange before we write him off.
2-Wiki has caused embarassment to the US worldwide, when exactly did they admit Manning sent the video.. my understanding is that they agreed to help him but did not admit he had sent anything. Manning claimed he sent the video.
3-this point seems very unsubstantiated..they have taken a stand of Peace, have talked about war crimes, civilian muslim casualties etc.
4-Lots of people don't believe 911 was an inside job...even for polictically aware folks this is a hard pill to swallow without some time to digest the facts. Let's bombard them with the facts.

Do I know for sure that Wiki is not a limited hangout.......of course not. Do I know for sure 911 was an inside job.....damn right it was. Am I mad as hell about it? Bet your bottom dollar I am. But I want more data on the Wikileak question. Some very bright people on this site have serious concerns and I think that's great. The way I look at it let Julian rise up in the public light for the moment...if he is an honest guy then we have a great chance at conversion. He doesn't have to worry about MIT funding does he. He has been talking in the international press about war crimes and has released video that incriminates the US investigative command as corrupt. I intend to reserve judgement before I decide to throw this baby out with leaking bath water.

That's Good PW

- The"Conspiracy" Part. I give you style points for that!

This is a "Conspiracy" site - to be perfectly accurate, and Assange is in the Conspiracy business, as he admits.

Wiki did not "out" Manning as far as anyone knows. This instead was a rather odd coincidence. Nevertheless, Manning was outed after giving info to Wiki and Wiki denies receiving Manning's hard goods. Now why would Manning lie?

Look .... I can appreciate wanting to see the good in people, but trust me --- this guy is a Fraud. And you are not going to convince a Fraud with facts - he knows the facts. The guy has a degree in Physics and is in the Conspiracy business for Chrissake - there is no real chance that he does not know what he is saying and doing when it comes to 9/11.

You think Chomsky just needs some more facts? At least Amy Goodman steers neutral to hold onto her job and income and whatever else she is afraid of losing, but Chomsky - in belittling 9/11 - is a Fraud.

And Assange's ridiculing the most in-your-face conspiracy out there, when supposedly he has access to whistleblower info, is also a Fraud.

You say: "He has been talking in the international press about war crimes and has released video that incriminates the US investigative command as corrupt."

There is nothing new here. Nothing worse than Guantanamo and Abu Graib. One more voice to that chorus of War Crimes and incriminating US Conduct (including members of MSM and Congress) is not going to change anything - not coming from some nerdy foreigner. You really think this guy is going to change American public opinion on these points?

Now that he has his Platform --- why not use it to disperse all of Sibel Edmonds' whistleblower stuff? He won't ----- Because he is a Fraud.

Anyway -- that's just my take. I could be wrong --- but I don't think so. :-)

Thanks for the style points TG.

Yeah my comment about Conspiracy was intended to be tongue in cheek, a feeble attempt at a bit of humour. As far as I know Manning was bragging about sending the stuff to wikileaks and wiki did the right thing by denying it. For the sake of Manning and Wiki that was probably a smart response I would think. If he has a degree in Physics all the more reason to corner him with some facts about 911 and expose him once and for all if he fails to man up. However my real point is that people on this site including myself can tend to lose perspective on how tough it is for people to accept 911 truth. It 's so much easier to say oh yeah the govt lies but not about those damn terrorists they hate US and of course those buildings came down after the airplanes hit them. As far as Chomsky I emailed him years ago after his comment about " what difference does it make" referring to 911truth. I told him I was finished with him etc. Your comment about nothing new with regard to Guantanamo and Abu Graib (let's not forget Bagram) is valid however who's fault is that? I blame Americans including our representatives for that. Good point about Siblel Edmonds , why not Richard Gage, why not Prof. Jones. However, I am willing to give him some more time and it wouldn't hurt to send him the rope to see if indeed he will hang himself. He very well may be an intelligence op however I am not quite convinced and if he gains more credibility and media exposure and then does finally swallow the truth pill he will be in a better position to increase the chances of 911truth going global and viral in the US. If he came out a few years ago as a big truther, so what, no one knew who he was anyway. Maybe just maybe time is on our side and I think we should play it that way. What's our downside? What do we really have to lose?


If there is anything we need to be careful of in the 9/11 truth movement, it is unproved assertions, masquerading as truth.

Fact: Julian Assange called 9/11 truth a false conspiracy. This means one of two things:

1. He actually believes what he said, and is ignorant of the truth--in which case we need to educate him, or
2. He does not actually believe what he said, or doesn't care about the truth of the statement, and so is likely in the pay of agencies associated with intelligence services.

We do not have enough evidence at this time to make a determination either way--the case is inconclusive. What should we do? We should try and get more information from him about his stand on 9/11 and the reasons for it. What we should not do is start a witch hunt against him, based on unproved assertions. Witch hunts are wonderful for destroying political movements--get people fighting with each other, accusations flying left and right, and the effectiveness of the movement goes out the window. The antidote is constant vigilance in basing what we say on real information, that can be confirmed.

The main stream (CIA

The main stream (CIA controlled) media is giving this a lot of attention and in so doing propping up Wikileaks. Therefore you can be absolutely certain of two things:

1. Nothing that Wikileaks 'leaks' is or will be a threat to them.

2. They'll benefit from it somehow.

If Wikileaks were a threat ,they certainly wouldn't draw attention to it! They'd ignore it like 911 Truth. My guess is that it is sort of a sting operation designed to catch whistle blowers & to contain leaks. It's also a conduit through which they can release information they want released.

I can't help but think that the 'P' in TAP (as in pipeline) stands for Pakistan. I could guess they're next. The question is do they come before or after Iran?

Well Said

It really is just that simple.

When are people going to learn what it is that they are dealing with.


The picture becomes clear once you focus the lens of logic on the subject.

We have to be brave enough to confront deception otherwise we'll be damaged by it for sure, and Assange's throw away comment about "9/11 conspiracies" is a warning sign.

It is, nevertheless, extremely disappointing.

OZ - Don't Let Wiki Get You Down

"It is, nevertheless, extremely disappointing."

I was disappointed as well, but then found something that raised my spirits.

Forget that duplicitous and sleazy rat, and take some pleasure in the simple virtue of an honest American woman, speaking truth to power. This cheered me up and provides hope, when our fellow citizens can rise up, see the truth and show courage:

You gotta listen to Democracy

You gotta listen to Democracy Now (yeah I know Amy is the queen of gate keepers) but the details of the Manning exposure are touched on. It wasn't wikileaks but Adrian Lamo, a coward par excellance.

The hits here against wikileaks are starting to look like "conspiracy theorists gone wild". Come on guys. Research this a bit more. Dennis Kucinich, Dennis Bernstein, Daniel Ellsberg, more ...all call the latest leaks a great revelation. Listen to Kucinich's referencing the leaks from todays voting on the war supplemental bill (33 Billion?) Listen to the hackers conference

Yes I know all about Lamo

John - you're missing the point on Manning.

If Wiki is dirty as the evidence suggests, you think they're going to announce that they outed a whistleblower? Is that suppose to be a rebuttal?

When you listen to Assange talk about Manning - he throws him under the bus. And here are his words:

Q: Manning alleged to have released 250,000 US Embassy Cables - Did he?

A: We have denied receiving those cables.

Q: If you did receive thousands of US Embassy cables ...

A: We would have released them.

Q: You would?

A: Yeah

Q: Because?

A: Well because ... these sorta things reveal .. ah .. what the true state of ... um ... say Arab governments are like - what the true human rights abuses in those governments are like ... if you look at declassified cables that's the sort of material you will see.

Come on .... look at what he says those cables (that he supposedly did not receive) would have revealed if he had received them .... I mean really.

And BTW -- you gotta look at both the questioner and Assange while this is going on -- I am a trial attorney and it looks very scripted. He's a pretty poor liar. And just look what he is saying. He is killing both a potential criminal defense theme for Manning on the Record and undercutting any leverage Manning would have if Wike backed him.

And we're supposed to be impressed by the reactions of the likes of Kucinich and Ellsberg --- people who are well behind our (my anyway) learning curve? Really?

Ellsberg admitted he was fooled by Obama -- and yet we're suppose to go with his impressions on this?

More disturbing and to the

More disturbing and to the point is Adrian Lamo's flimsy excuse for turning in Manning. Listen to this human worm on the links provided...also this was Lamo's call. He was denounced by many of his peers at the hacker conference. My point, which you seem to be missing, is that the data revealed speaks for itself. Numerous war crime activities, hundreds of civilian deaths, US Army hit squads? Come on TopGun give me a break. Keep in touch with this blog for a show on wikileaks from today July 27.

You Cannot Say Lamo is More Disturbing

Look - I read all about Lamo weeks ago when this all happened. I too was excited about Wiki at the time.

Even back then, however, I did not think the Lamo story made sense or was authentic. It seemed to me that the guy was an Intel plant out trolling the blogs and came upon Manning. Of course his fellow hackers would look down on such behavior, but don't assume his story is authentic. If Wiki were in any way involved, it would just make it all that more easy to set up a sting using someone like Lamo as the apparent weak and blundering snitch. Why would you find the behavior of one individual more disturbing than a potentially corrupt and fraudulent whistleblower operation - that is much more disturbing if true - agree?

Read the two responses that follow --- I don't see any thematic contradiction in the War either. You're jumping to conclusions on this point.

Ray McGovern and Secret Government
Ray McGovern was part of of a very good program this morning on KALW (SF), that brought perspective to government secrecy, Wikileaks, and even 9/11 (at the end of the show) and its coverup.

New York Times reporters met with White House before publishing

New York Times reporters met with White House before publishing WikiLeaks story
The administration "praised" New York Times reporters for their handling of leaked Afghan war material

He gives them the info..then they meet with the WH?


no further questions.

Assange not opposed to the war in Afghanistan?

This seems like a strange comment for someone to make who professes to be opposed to war and corruption; from his July 26 press conference:
"Assange asserted that WikiLeaks does not “have a view about whether the war should continue or stop.’’ But he added: “We do have a view that it should be prosecuted as humanely as possible.’’"

Also, see this, pointed out in the gatekeeper WaPo:
Is WikiLeaks the Pentagon Papers, Part 2? Parallels, and differences, exist.
"But there are important differences. The key one is the nature of the documents and the substance of what they reveal. The Pentagon Papers were a complete, three-volume history of the war, a 7,000-page narrative spanning a 22-year period. They relied on some of the highest-level documentation possible: White House memos, military reports, CIA and State Department cables. They disclosed official secrets, such as the covert bombing of Laos and Cambodia, and outright lies, such as Lyndon Johnson's plans to widen the war in 1964 despite an explicit campaign pledge to the contrary.

"By contrast, the Afghan documents -- more than 91,000 in all -- are a loosely related collection of material covering nearly six years (early 2004 through late 2009) that leaves out important context. Many of the documents are unedited, firsthand reports by military officials, some of which are routine after-action summaries. What's revealing about the material may be what's missing: classified documents that could shed further light on some of the incidents described in the raw material.
"A further distinction: No single message has emerged from the Afghan documents the way it did from the Pentagon Papers.

"On Monday, the New York Times emphasized the duplicity of the Pakistan military and secret service and its involvement with the Taliban; the Guardian focused on reports of civilian atrocities; and Der Spiegel underscored how the German government has mischaracterized the military situation in northern Afghanistan that involves German troops. The headlines from the publication of the Pentagon Papers were more consistent: The administration had deceived the public about the war.

""The reports I'm seeing make me feel that this is not the Pentagon Papers," says Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, which works with whistleblowers. "I think there's an enormous difference between raw intelligence from the ground and high level analysis from inside the Pentagon. Ninety-two thousand cables is so scattershot . . . that I don't know what the specific message is."

"Importantly, the Afghan documents don't specifically contradict official statements and administration policies, as the Pentagon Papers did. Some of what is disclosed is revelatory or embarrassing -- American forces with inadequate equipment or resources, for example -- but there are no fully formed conclusions at odds with the Bush or Obama administration's views of the war."

It will speak volumes f this leak turns out to be more useful in expanding the war on terror than ending it; if that's what happens, it may mean that Assange was used- or that he's a witting agent. His handwaving dismissal of 9/11 questions- even if he is getting bombarded w/ BS comments about space beams and holograms, etc.- was really off-base, and someone in his position should know a lot better.

This about Ellsberg has been pointed out in other threads, but is relevant here, too; was the Pentagon Papers leak an attempt by some Establishment faction to reign in Nixon/Pentagon war pigs, before they ruined a larger agenda with an increasingly unpopular war?

I don't know if Assange is a shill or not, but wikileaks should not be taken at face value, just like nothing the US govt or MSM say should be taken at face value- and it shouldn't be assumed Manning- or Lamo- are who they've been represented as, either:

The truth will out

Big deal. People change. Ask

Big deal. People change. Ask Richard Gage. He was a republican who twice voted for Reagan and he probably voted for Bush2 at least once. Now look. Again guys, look at the data and the type of info that's being revealed. The special appropriations vote was close today...the Wikileaks were cited by many in their announced no vote on this insane war spending.

The US Treasury Running on

The US Treasury Running on Fumes: The Obama regime has made War the Business of America
Down to the last trillion in red ink

by Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research, July 28, 2010

The White House is screaming like a stuck pig. WikiLeaks’ release of the Afghan War Documents “puts the lives of our soldiers and our coalition partners at risk.”

What nonsense. Obama’s war puts the lives of American soldiers at risk, and the craven puppet state behavior of “our partners” in serving as US mercenaries is what puts their troops at risk.

Keep in mind that it was someone in the US military that leaked the documents to WikiLeaks. This means that there is a spark of rebellion within the Empire itself.

And rightly so. The leaked documents show that the US has committed numerous war crimes and that the US government and military have lied through their teeth in order to cover up the failure of their policies. These are the revelations that Washington wants to keep secret.

If Obama cared about the lives of our soldiers, he would not have sent them to a war, the purpose of which he cannot identify. Earlier in his regime, Obama admitted that he did not know what the mission was in Afghanistan. He vowed to find out what the mission was and to tell us, but he never did. After being read the riot act by the military/security complex, which recycles war profits into political campaign contributions, Obama simply declared the war to be “necessary.” No one has ever explained why the war is necessary.

The government cannot explain why the war is necessary, because it is not necessary to the American people. Any necessary reason for the war has to do with the enrichment of narrow private interests and with undeclared agendas. If the agendas were declared and the private interests being served identified, even the American sheeple might revolt.

The Obama regime has made war the business of America. Escalation in Afghanistan has gone hand in hand with drone attacks on Pakistan and the use of proxy forces to conduct wars in Pakistan and North Africa. Currently, the US is conducting provocative

naval exercises off the coasts of China and North Korea and instigating war between Columbia and Venezuela in South America. Former CIA director Michael Hayden declared on July 25 that an attack on Iran seems unavoidable.

With the print and TV media captive, why doesn’t Washington simply tell us that the country is at war without going to the trouble of war? That way the munitions industry can lay off its workers and put the military appropriations directly into profits. We could avoid the war crimes and wasted lives of our soldiers.

The US economy and the well-being of Americans are being sacrificed to the regime’s wars. The states are broke and laying off teachers. Even “rich” California, formerly touted as “the seventh largest economy in the world,” is reduced to issuing script and cutting its state workers’ pay to the minimum wage.

Supplemental war appropriations have become routine affairs, but the budget deficit is invoked to block any aid to Americans--but not to Israel. On July 25 the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, reported that the US and Israel had signed a multi-billion dollar deal for Boeing to provide Israel with a missile system.

Americans can get no help out of Washington, but the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, declared that Washington’s commitment to Israel’s security is “not negotiable.” Washington’s commitment to California and to the security of the rest of us is negotiable. War spending has run up the budget deficit, and the deficit precludes any help for Americans.

With the US bankrupting itself in wars, America’s largest creditor, China, has taken issue with America’s credit rating. The head of China’s largest credit rating agency declared: “The US is insolvent and faces bankruptcy as a pure debtor nation.”

On July 12, Niall Ferguson, an historian of empire, warned that the American empire could collapse suddenly from weakness brought on by its massive debts and that such a collapse could be closer than we think.

Deaf, dumb, and blind, Washington policymakers prattle on about “thirty more years of war.”

Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Paul Craig Roberts

There's a spectrum of opinion on this subject

I don't think it's terribly helpful to take a polarised position - eg. that wikileaks is a CIA front OR that they are pure as the driven snow.

The following analysis from Alex Jones seems sober and balanced:

sober and balanced. . .

. . . indeed, tho i find myself feeling more suspicious of assange than alex does here, as he performs at his restrained best.

great video, excellent thread. thanks!


Bin Laden among latest Wikileaks Afghan revelations
27 July 10 14:21 GMT
Afghan civilians inspect airstrike wreckage, Kunduz, September 2009

New details, including reports on Osama Bin Laden dating from 2006, have emerged from 90,000 US military files leaked to the Wikileaks website.

Several files track Bin Laden, although the US has said it had received no reliable information on him "in years".

The details come as the Pentagon investigates who leaked the classified documents, in an act the White House says could harm national security.

Wikileaks describes the documents as battlefield and intelligence reports.

It says they were compiled by a variety of military units between 2004 and 2009.

In August 2006, a US intelligence report placed Bin Laden at a meeting in Quetta, over the border in Pakistan.

It said he and others - including the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar - were organising suicide attacks in Afghanistan.

The targets were unknown, the report said, but the bombers were carrying explosives from Pakistan.

Nearly 200 files concern Task Force 373, a US special forces unit whose job was to kill or capture Taliban or al-Qaeda commanders.

The records log 144 incidents involving Afghan civilian casualties, including 195 fatalities, the UK's Guardian newspaper reports.

'Damaging details'

The Wikileaks dossier includes an incident in June 2007 when the unit engaged in a firefight with what were believed to be insurgents. An airstrike was called in.

Seven of those killed were Afghan police officers. A further four were injured. The incident was labelled a misunderstanding.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the leak did not divulge anything new about the nature of the war in Afghanistan but said the details revealed could be damaging.

"[It] has a potential to be very harmful to those that are in our military, those that are co-operating with our military and those that are working to keep us safe," he said.

If You Were A Potential Whistleblower ...

What would be your reaction to Assange and the recent Wikileaks phenomenon?

Put your feet in these people's shoes - how does this make you feel? What is different now?

Here's what you know:

1. Manning made disclosure, got arrested, and Wiki denied receiving what Manning describes as his blockbuster disclosures. Encouraging? (Someone made the point of not assuming Manning is on the up and up, and I think that is a correct observation, if you consider the impact his part in all this could have on the system -- I am not saying either way -- I'd have to hear what he has to say to make a judgment.)

2. Wiki hits the MSM scene in a big way and is all cozy with MSM.

3. Wiki's leaks, while saying bad things about War in general (Oh - that's breaking news) does not contradict the War themes in a concrete way.

4. Assange says that 9/11 conspiracy is nonsense.

So .... two things. First, you'd have to be out of your mind to trust disclosing to Wikileaks. Second, Whistleblowers are often paranoid and, if anything, the Wiki phenomenon is going to make them more reluctant/afraid to trust other disclosure venues, as also being potential government front operations.

And these effects should exist independent of what you believe about Assange and Wikileaks. These are objective facts that a potential Whistleblower will now need to confront in making a decision to go public. And a 9/11 Whistleblower???? Forget about it ....

Wikileaks as counterinsurgency propaganda

We must be prepared for the inevitable use of Wikileaks to marginalize 9/11 Truth. We have just witnessed the founder of Wikileaks speak disparagingly of the 9/11 Truth Movement. In the future, expect to hear something along the lines of, "Of all the thousands of leaked documents and leaked informaion provided to Wikileaks, NOT ONE has anything to do with 9/11. Don't you think that an operation on such a massive scale would produce hundreds, if not thousands of leaks? NOT ONE. These conspiracy nuts are living in a dream world filled with paranoid visions."


I suppose the thousands of 'private' 911 text messages they released are along these lines (in terms of irrelevance).. seems they don't only release 'state secrets'.


Listen to him on DN! today or read the transcript:
He is very impressive. On the 911 issue, not discussed here, he may be avoiding it for tactical reasons.

please spare me the "tactical reasons"

horse dung. It has been 8 years, 10 months and 17 days. By now, anyone asked about 9/11 is not being taken by suprise. We of course know. Some claim to not know, but couch it in maybe not seeing compelling evidence or some other semantic games. Only a select few go out of their way to disparge and/or belittle "THE MOVEMENT". If we cannot grow enough collective spine to agree that those who choose to mock and insult us are unquestionably diametrically opposed to and actively working against our goal(a new investigation), then we have much growing to do.

Clearly the Perps and all their dependent perpettes are scaired shitless over our relentlessness.

IMHO, disruption of our movement may in fact be one of the primary motives behind the creation of


It seems too early in this leaks game to engage in paranoid -- and divisive -- speculation. Do you trust Bell? There certainly is the scent of some Sunsteinism wafting around, but don't jump to conclusions and alienate potential friends. You and others are reacting to NYT reporting on this. Listen a while to Assange. He says the surface has barely been scratched and emphasizes that the material leaked all originated in the U.S. military and has to be taken with that in mind.

the plot thickens....

Judge Napolitano of Fox says WikiLeaks asked Obama Admin to review docs for redactions, got no response.

Judge Andrew Napolitano reported he had interviewed Mr. Assange from WikiLeaks. Napolitano asked Assange if he contacted the Obama Administration about the documents before releasing them. Assange said WikiLeaks did — so that the Obama Administration would have the opportunity to request redactions of any information that might be especially harmful. The response from the Obama Administration? No response at.