portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

9.11 investigation | media criticism

Wikileaks as a US/Zionist Psyop against USA to distract from Israel & to push for WWIII

some points to consider, [1] Israel is the problem in the Middle East; as Chomsky says there is a huge attempt to distract the world from knowing that the truth is MOST PEOPLE SEE ISRAEL AS THE GLOBAL PROBLEM NOT IRAN: "[latest polls show] Arab opinion holds that the major threat in the region is Israel, that's 80%. The second threat [according to Arab world polls] is the United States, that's 77%....Iran is listed as a threat [only] by 10%," Chomsky says, yet Wikileaks selectively focuses and changes the subject to Iran (just what the neozioncons want) to ignore Israel entirely and focuses on North Korea? Who edits Wikileaks, the CIA or Mossad or does it matter which Zionist tool does? [2] "The [peaceful elite faction of the] United States is the real victim of WikiLeaks. It's an action aimed at discrediting them." Franco Frattini, Foreign Minister of Italy. Why would this matter? Because the U.S. support of Israel without criticism is waning, so "To maintain the plausibility of The Clash of Civilizations, a focus must be maintained on Iran as a credible Evil Doer [as well as North Korea]. With fast-emerging transparency, Israel and pro-Israelis have been identified as the source of the intelligence that took coalition forces to war in Iraq [and now with Wikileaks?]. Thus the need to shift attention off Tel Aviv. Why now? Tel Aviv was feeling pressure to end its six-decade occupation of Palestine. With this release, its foot-dragging on the peace process was displaced with [Wikileaks' encouraged] talk of an attack on Iran."
beware location of USS George Washington in world: state terrorism follows it
beware location of USS George Washington in world: state terrorism follows it
[3] Predictably, Wikileaks tends to focus on U.S. proxy dictatorships in the West who dislike Iran on cue, like Egypt and Syria, because it shows how co-opted these groups are against their own people.

[4] Like Wikileaks the U.S. is already spinning the 'revelations' for more ziocon warfare: "On November 29, National Public Radio emphasized that the [heavily redacted, and pro-Israeli] cables showed that Iran was isolated even in the Muslim world, making it easier for the Israelis and Americans to attack." To make the whole sham plausible, even American and other actors have stated how much they hate the Wikileaks website...that really provides only a plausible deniability that it is a U.S.-Zionist operation to shake up the world and show support for their warmongering policies of attacking/isolating Iran by perhaps getting others to do stupid things that the U.S. or Israel can seize upon as a war provocation for more empire in the world despite the U.S. and Israel being seen by most as the real problems in world politics already. So pressure and the cultural context for war empowers the factions in the U.S. and Israel to tow the Israeli warmongering line in the Middle East, and to tow the U.S. warmongering line in East Asia. This is what Wikileaks are doing and it's very pro U.S. and pro-Zionist so far. So why is this somehow against the U.S.? It fails to seem that way.

[And you should worry when you see the USS George Washington in any war game provocations. Why?

The 9-11 angle is that the USS George Washington was chosen as the provocation off Beijing and North Korea in the Yellow Sea. The USS George Washington was involved in command and control during the 9-11 events, particularly the radio controlled planes expertise in testing pilotless Global Hawks that assuredly slammed into the Pentagon--the USS George Washington was the test site of this expertise across the Atlantic before--though that is left out of the following summary though should be included:

The 9/11 Base Of Operations: Aircraft Carrier USS George Washington
[Editor's note: This would tie a lot of loose ends together]
23 October 2007, home.att.net, Jon Carlson
 http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911AirBase1.htm ]

"With good circumstantial evidence that Bush I [and Cheney] headed up the 9/11 standdown operation from the White House, America had an aircraft carrier full of jet airplanes stand down just off Manhattan Island!" Then after 9-11, the USS George Washington it steamed into New York City proud of its state terrorism and for cosmetic effect of the criminals posing as protectors on the scene, when they had been ignoring the attacks only a hour before. Now this boat is in the Yellow Sea off Beijing and North Korea....]


The Chomsky quotes:



Wikileaks exposes Zionist Treachery [though only in a way to discredit peace in the Middle East by further demoting a U.S. faction's legitimacy which wants to avoid war in the Middle East by destroying their credibility and forcing the Zionists groups to dominate more. Wikileaks is selling Huntington's Clash of civilizations selling tool. The Wikileaks people are selling The Clash argument with their relevations. Who does it serve? Zionist branches of the U.S. political elites, and Israel itself. Though it's hard to see how WWIII in the Middle East can do anything except destroy everyone. Though perhaps that is the plan of the globalists as well, to usher in huge mistrust and then hope it leads to war somehow that they can profit from politically and economically for a New World Order.]


WikiLeaks ­More Israeli Game Theory Warfare?
By Jeff Gates

"The United States is the real victim of WikiLeaks. It's an action aimed at discrediting them." Franco Frattini, Foreign Minister of Italy

The impact of the WikiLeaks release of diplomatic cables fits the behavior profile of those well versed in game theory warfare.

When Israeli mathematician Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science for his work on game theory, he conceded, "the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel" has turned "Israel into the leading authority in this field."

The candor of this Israeli-American offered a rare insight into an enclave long known for waging war from the shadows. Israel's most notable success to date was "fixing" the intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in pursuit of a geopolitical agenda long sought by Tel Aviv

When waging intelligence wars, timing is often the critical factor for game-theory war planners. The outcome of the WikiLeaks release suggests a psy-ops directed at the U.S.

Why now? Tel Aviv was feeling pressure to end its six-decade occupation of Palestine. With this release, its foot-dragging on the peace process was displaced with talk of an attack on Iran.

While the U.S. bore the brunt of the damage, the target was global public opinion. To maintain the plausibility of The Clash of Civilizations, a focus must be maintained on Iran as a credible Evil Doer.

With fast-emerging transparency, Israel and pro-Israelis have been identified as the source of the intelligence that took coalition forces to war in Iraq. Thus the need to shift attention off Tel Aviv.

WikiLeaks may yet succeed in that mission.

Foreseeable Futures

Game theory war planning aims to create outcomes that are predictable-within an acceptable range of probabilities. That's why Israeli war planners focus on gaining traction for a plausible narrative and then advancing that storyline step by gradual step.

For the Zionist state to succeed with its expansionist agenda, Iran must remain at center stage as an essential villain in a geopolitical morality play pitting the West against Islamo Fascists.

To displace facts with false beliefs-as with belief in the intelligence that induced the invasion of Iraq-momentum must be maintained for the storyline. Lose the plot (The Clash) and peace might break out. And those deceived may identify the deceiver.

Thus the timing of this latest WikiLeaks release. Its goal: to have us believe that it is not Tel Aviv but Washington that is the forefront of geopolitical duplicity and a source of Evil Doing.

Intelligence wars rely on mathematical models to anticipate the response of those targeted. With game theory algorithms, reactions become foreseeable-within an acceptable range of probabilities.

Control enough of the variables and outcomes become a mathematical inevitability.

The WikiLeaks Motive

Was the reaction to this latest WikiLeaks foreseeable? With exquisite timing, the U.S. was discredited with an array of revelations that called into question U.S. motives and put in jeopardy U.S. relations worldwide.

As the Italian Foreign Minister summarized: "The news released by WikiLeaks will change diplomatic relations between countries."

The hard-earned trust of the Pakistanis disappeared overnight. Attempts to engage Iran were set back. The overall effect advanced The Clash storyline. If Washington could so badly misread North Korean intentions, then why is the U.S. to be trusted when it comes to a nuclear Iran?

This Wiki-catalyzed storyline pushed Israel off the front page in favor of Iran.

Even U.S. detainees at Guantanamo are again at issue, reigniting that shameful spectacle as a provocation for extremism and terror. U.S. diplomats will now be suspected of spying and lying. What nation can now trust Americans to maintain confidences?

In short, the risks increased for everyone.

Except Israel.

Should Israel launch an attack on Iran, Tel Aviv can cite WikiLeaks as its rationale. Though an attack would be calamitous from a human, economic and financial perspective, even that foreseeable outcome would be dwarfed by the enduring hatred that would ensue.

That too is foreseeable-from a game theory perspective of those marketing The Clash.

The effect of the U.S. invasion of Iraq was predictable. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia foresaw it, noting simply that the U.S. invasion would "give Iraq to Iran as a gift on a golden platter."

With the elimination of Sunni leader Saddam Hussein, the numerically dominant Shiites of Iraq were drawn into the political orbit of the Shiite-dominant Iran.

Game theorists focus their manipulation of affairs on their control of key variables. Then events take on a life all their own. The impact of this discrediting release was wide-ranging and fully foreseeable.

A Mossad case officer explained Israel's success at waging war by way of deception: "Once the orchestra starts to play, we just hum along."

These, after all, are the leading authorities in the field.

Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association-How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War.
See  http://www.criminalstate.com


Who Precisely Is Attacking The World?
By Paul Craig Roberts

The stuck pigs are squealing. To shift the onus from the US State Department, Hillary Clinton paints Wikileaks' release of the "diplomatic cables" as an "attack on the international community." To reveal truth is equivalent in the eyes of the US government to an attack on the world.

It is Wikileaks' fault that all those US diplomats wrote a quarter of a million undiplomatic messages about America's allies, a.k.a., puppet states. It is also Wikileaks' fault that a member of the US government could no longer stomach the cynical ways in which the US government manipulates foreign governments to serve, not their own people, but American interests, and delivered the incriminating evidence to Wikileaks.

The US government actually thinks that it was Wikileaks patriotic duty to return the evidence and to identify the leaker. After all, we mustn't let the rest of the world find out what we are up to. They might stop believing our lies.

The influential German magazine, Der Spiegel, writes: "It is nothing short of a political meltdown for US foreign policy."

This might be more a hope than a reality. The "Soviet threat" during the second half of the 20th century enabled US governments to create institutions that subordinated the interests of other countries to those of the US government. After decades of following US leadership, European "leaders" know no other way to act. Finding out that the boss badmouths and deceives them is unlikely to light a spirit of independence. At least not until America's economic collapse becomes more noticeable.

The question is: how much will the press tell us about the documents? Spiegel itself has said that the magazine is permitting the US government to censure, at least in part, what it prints about the leaked material. Most likely, this means the public will not learn the content of the 4,330 documents that "are so explosive that they are labelled 'NOFORN,'" meaning that foreigners, including presidents, prime ministers, and security services that share information with the CIA, are not permitted to read the documents. Possibly, also, the content of the 16,652 cables classified as "secret" will not be revealed to the public.

Most likely the press, considering their readers' interests, will focus on gossip and the unflattering remarks Americans made about their foreign counterparts. It will be good for laughs. Also, the US government will attempt to focus the media in ways that advance US policies.

Indeed, it has already begun. On November 29, National Public Radio emphasized that the cables showed that Iran was isolated even in the Muslim world, making it easier for the Israelis and Americans to attack. The leaked cables reveal that the president of Egypt, an American puppet, hates Iran, and the Saudi Arabian government has been long urging the US government to attack Iran. In other words, Iran is so dangerous to the world that even its co-religionists want Iran wiped off the face of the earth.

NPR presented several nonobjective "Iranian experts" who denigrated Iran and its leadership and declared that the US government, by resisting its Middle Eastern allies' calls for bombing Iran, was the moderate in the picture. The fact that President George W. Bush declared Iran to be a member of "the axis of evil" and threatened repeatedly to attack Iran, and that President Obama has continued the threats--Adm. Michael Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, has just reiterated that the US hasn't taken the attack option off the table--are not regarded by American "Iran experts" as indications of anything other than American moderation.

Somehow it did not come across the NPR newscast that it is not Iran but Israel that routinely slaughters civilians in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, and that it is not Iran but the US and its NATO mercenaries who slaughter civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yeman, and Pakistan.

Iran has not invaded any of its neighbors, but the Americans are invading countries half way around the globe.

The "Iranian experts" treated the Saudi and Egyptian rulers' hatred of Iran as a vindication of the US and Israeli governments' demonization of Iran. Not a single "Iranian expert" was capable of pointing out that the tyrants who rule Egypt and Saudi Arabia fear Iran because the Iranian government represents the interests of Muslims, and the Saudi and Egyptian governments represent the interests of the Americans.

Think what it must feel like to be a tyrant suppressing the aspirations of your own people in order to serve the hegemony of a foreign country, while a nearby Muslim government strives to protect its people's independence from foreign hegemony.

Undoubtedly, the tyrants become very anxious. What if their oppressed subjects get ideas? Little wonder the Saudis and Egyptian rulers want the Americans to eliminate the independent-minded country that is a bad example for Egyptian and Saudi subjects.

As long as the dollar has enough value that it can be used to purchase foreign governments, information damaging to the US government is unlikely to have much affect. As Alain of Lille said a long time ago, "money is all."


And the spin to pin the blame more on China--instead of the real truth that it was political groups in the U.S. that were attacking Amazon.com to shut down Wikileaks from its servers.

I see even this Western media spin to attach China without clear data as serving U.S. warmongering/demonization of China as well. So what is new: Wikileaks just being spun to sell hostility more against the usual suspects of desired by U.S. militarism, China and Iran. So how does Wikileaks really damage the U.S. warmongers? It doesn't. Wikileaks is selling warfare rationales and destabalization in Middle east and China! This implies that Wikileaks is serving a purpose for the U.S. and Israel allies against the world.

[The unsubstantiated claim of] WikiLeaks website brought down in U.S. and Europe by 'powerful' cyber attack 'from China' [while in the next article, it is the U.S. that is cutting back the servers themselves, and in the next article, how ridiculous it is to think that the U.S. can do this]

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 8:32 AM on 1st December 2010

The WikiLeaks website today said that it was under a forceful internet-based attack with the site inaccessible to users in U.S. and Europe.

The site, which just distributed a trove of U.S. diplomatic documents, said in a Twitter message on that it is under a 'distributed denial of service attack,' a method commonly used by hackers to slow down or bring down sites.

WikiLeaks was also under attack on Sunday - but the latest assault - believed [by what Western warmonger?] to come from China - appears to be more powerful.

Brought down: WikiLeaks said they had today come under a powerful cyberattack and the website was not accessible from either the U.S. or Europe [er, so that was caused by China? To stop its access in U.S. and Europe? Makes little sense.]

WikiLeaks said the malicious traffic was coming in at 10 gigabits per second, which would make it a relatively large effort.

The WikiLeaks site is hosted in Sweden and devoted to releasing anonymously submitted documents.

The attack followed China urging Barack Obama to get a grip on the fallout from leaked U.S. embassy documents that revealed Beijing is privately preparing to abandon its ally North Korea. [Which of course is a selective pro-U.S. release that pushes more isolation on North Korea like U.S. wants. So how is Wikileaks doing anything except aiding the U.S. military foreign policy in Korea?]

According to cables made available by WikiLeaks, the Chinese are ready to accept Korean reunification and increasingly believe their nuclear activities are 'a threat to the whole world's security'.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei today said Beijing has noted the Wikileaks' disclosure of a trove of State Department cables, but declined further comment.

Awkward ally: Kim Jong-il is seen more as a threat by China. Beijing today urged the U.S. to 'properly handle' the fallout from the WikiLeaks dossier

He said: 'We hope the US side will properly handle relevant issues.'

'We don't want to see any disturbance to China-US relations,' Mr Hong added.

According to the documents, Beijing worries that further instability in 'spoiled child' North Korea could cause a massive influx of refugees.

They have estimated that they could only cope with an influx of 300,000 people and may need to use the military to close the border in the event of a crisis.

In February South Korean vice-foreign minister Chun Yung-woo told U.S. ambassador Kathleen Stephens that among the younger generation of Communist leaders North Korea was no longer seen as a reliable ally.

The South Korean politician said China was no longer prepared to engage in armed conflict to protect its ally.

The cables revealed: 'Chun argued that in the event of a North Korean collapse, China would clearly 'not welcome' any US military presence north of the DMZ (dimilitarised zone).

'Again citing his conversations with (the officials), Chun said the PRC (China) would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchored to the US in a "benign alliance" - as long as Korea was not hostile towards China.

'Tremendous trade and labour-export opportunities for Chinese companies, Chun said, would also help 'salve PRC concerns about... a reunified Korea,' The Guardian reported today.

Further cables revealed Beijing's uneasiness about North Korean military testing.

The U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan, Richard Hoagland, was told by Cheng Guoping he was 'genuinely concerned by North Korea's recent nuclear missile tests'.

'"We need to solve this problem. It is very troublesome."'

And 69-year-old North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il who has had a stroke has begun to lose his touch.

He has begun to reverse his policies and backtrack on issues.

The problem, the cables said, was that 'officials also chart their own course as different factions competing for Kim's attention, making it difficult for Kim to set a firm, clear direction'.

The dictator had forced all students in China and all those working there to return to the country because a single one of them had defected.

Yesterday China edged away from its previously tame stance towards its rogue neighbour by calling for 'emergency consultations' and inviting a senior North Korean official to Beijing.

It came as South Korean residents scrambled for cover yesterday as North Korea threatened to launch a 'sea of fire' over military drills in the Yellow Sea with the US military.

Residents were ordered into bomb shelters as the sound of artillery fire was heard just days after two of its soldiers were killed by North Korea shells. [Which started because U.S. ally of South Korea fired into North Korean waters during a war drill, NOT BECAUSE North Korea attacked first. The South Koreans fired first, and created the provocation, and then North Korea took the bait. This is the typical way the U.S. and its allies operate to start wars by blaming the other side in the global media when they started it themselves.]

The tension between the two countries has escalated since North Korean artillery fire five days ago and the start of 'war games' in South Korea.

South Korea's Defence Ministry has now ordered reporters to leave Yeonpyeong, saying 'the situation is not good' on the island following the start of the military drills.
Lieutenant General Yoo Nak-Joon

Lieutenant General Yoo Nak-Joon, commander of South Korean Marine Corps, salutes during the funeral ceremony for two marines killed during North Korea's attack on Yeonpyeong Island

The South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak has meanwhile warned his country to be ready for a surprise attack by the North.

His warning came as a state-run website in the North warned that the military exercises would be an 'unpardonable provocation' and that it would create a 'sea of fire' if any of its territory was violated.

The latest explosions in the South were heard but there were no confirmations that anything had been fired. No witnesses saw explosions and there was no damage.

But the rhetoric from North Korea escalated with new warnings of a 'merciless' assault if further provoked and a top Chinese official made a last-minute visit to Seoul to confer with South Korean president Lee Myung-bak.

Fears of further conflict have grown since last week after South Korea's Marine commander Lieutenant General Yoo Nak Joon vowed 'thousand fold revenge' at the funeral for the two dead Marines.

Washington and Seoul have urged China, North Korea's main ally and biggest benefactor, to step in to defuse the situation amid fears of all-out war.

But a round or military drills and war games between the US and South Korea in the Yellow Sea will add to the tension in the area.

Washington insists the drills involving the nuclear-powered USS George Washington supercarrier are routine and were planned well before Tuesday's attack.

[This may have been planned because China fired a missle over the Pacific that was seen in California, right before the G20 and that China refused to accept U.S. leadership of the G20. Obama failed at the G20 because of China, so U.S. is showing China its aircraft carriers in the Yellow Sea now, right near Beijing...]

North Korea has expressed outrage over the Yellow Sea drills and issued a fresh warning today.

'We will launch merciless counter-military strikes against any provocative moves that infringe upon our country's territorial waters,' the North's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in an editorial carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

The Korean peninsula remains in a technical state of war because the 1950-53 war ended in a truce, but not a peace treaty. Their border is one of the world's most heavily fortified, guarded by troops on both sides.

The bitter trade of threats has escalated since the North's bombardment of the island and surrounding seas on Tuesday killed four people, injured 18 and set buildings and forests ablaze.

Two South Korean soldiers were killed and a dozen injured after dozens of artillery shells were fired onto Yeonpyeong island setting more than 60 houses ablaze and sending civilians fleeing in terror [after South Korean provocations into North Korean waters earlier.]

The incident is believed to have been sparked by South Korean military exercises in the area [that fired into North Korean waters], which the North had objected to.

North Korea said that the deaths had been regrettable and blamed them on The South using the men as a 'human shield' on the island.


Two Marines and two civilians were killed in the attack. The funeral was followed by three separate anti-North Korea protests in the capital [and the global media ignores the many peace marches and candlelight demonstrations in Seoul by the way! Just attempting to focus on promoting war, though hardly anyone in Korea wants war] as a U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier headed for joint manoeuvres with South Korea on Sunday, infuriating North Korea and prompting a warning from its only major ally, China.

'It's time for action. Time for retaliation. Let's hit the presidential palace in Pyongyang,' shouted close to 1,000 Marine veterans in downtown Seoul who burnt photographs of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and his anointed successor, son Kim Jung-un. [Oh yeah, that would be smart. And the South Koreans want more provocations because:

S.Korea to resume artillery exercises on Yeonpyeong

S. Korea turns into a police state under President Lee now as well:
National Security Law police bookings soar under Lee administration
A civic organization says the 43 percent warrant rejection rate means the law has been administered arbitrarily

Civic organizations call for dialogue with N.Korea as military continues drills
Organizations say that a peaceful resolution is the only way to recover regional stability and peace

The politics of public opinion in S.Korea
By Park Chang-sik, Editorial Writer

There was a noteworthy transformation in the structure of public consciousness in 2010. The three pieces of black magic that block the development of democratic opinion in Korean society - North Korea, South Korea's clannish media and political regionalism - have all lost their power. In the first half of the year, the Lee Myung-bak administration engaged in blatant exaggerations to use the sinking of the Cheonan [maybe South Korea's self-hit '911' though pinned on North Korea with little evidence and much fraud in the S. Korean argument] in the June 2 local elections, while the clannish media, well-connected to both the government and big business, played the role of advanced guard. In the past, the people would have bought this. Unexpectedly, however, the ruling Grand National Party lost badly in the election. The solid performance and victories of non-GNP candidates in the Busan and South Gyeongsang Province region are grounds to believe that regionalism is waning.

The same trend has been evident since the artillery attack on Yeonpyeong Island. According to a poll by pollsters Real Media on Nov. 24, 44.8 percent of respondents favor a strong military response against North Korea, even if it leads to escalation. 33.5 percent feel escalation should be avoided, even if the military response followed the rules of engagement, while 16.2 percent feel a military response should be avoided in favor of a political and economic response, for a combined total of 49.7 percent.

Despite the fact that the poll took place right after the artillery attack, when public anger was high against North Korea's provocation, the Lee Myung-bak government's keynote position of responding militarily even if it meant escalating the situation did not received 50 percent support, while the opposition's position of peace management by avoiding escalation received more support.

This confirms once again that when specifically considering the issue of how to manage North Korea, the South Korean people are keeping a cool head rather than being swept away with emotion. There is sufficient possibility that like the case with the Cheonan, as time passes, support for a strong military response regardless of escalation will decrease, while support for the latter two options will increase.

When deciding policy, it is also necessary to thoroughly examine public opinion. These days, however, the Lee government's security policy ignores objective reality and seems to be biased towards the emotional demands of some conservative voters. The defense minister's resignation, the changes to the rules of engagement, the reinforcement of military forces and the joint Korea-U.S. exercises in the West Sea all appear as such.

It will be difficult to tame North Korea with such policy decisions. In contrast, the policy could boost the threat of additional provocations and clashes. To accept the hardline opinion seething up from conservative voters is like riding on the back of a tiger. Once you are on, it is hard to get off. Accordingly, the Lee government is not changing its hardline keynote in the slightest, regardless of its effectiveness. The result is that an unstable situation continues in which there is no means to manage the risk of an even stronger clash taking place between the two Koreas. This is the danger of "security populism."

The opposition is also misreading opinion, as the opposition is inclined to do. The main opposition Democratic Party (DP) tried to include the principle of seeking inter-Korean talks to relax tensions and create a permanent peace into a parliamentary resolution slamming North Korea for its armed provocation, but exhausted, it gave up. As a party carrying on the policies of the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations, the DP needs to clearly articulate their position. They also have not clearly represented public opinion. The second and third groups surveyed in favor of refraining from escalation and looking toward a peaceful solution with already superior numbers are likely to increase. However, just as with the Cheonan incident, the DP has lost confidence in this instance as well and have wavered in the face of conservative public opinion.

Seoul National University Emeritus Professor Paik Nak-chung said, "In 2012, it is unlikely that welfare discourse can become a progressive alternative, and inter-Korean relations will become a much more important agenda."

This is to say that even with former GNP Chairwoman Park Geun-hye saying she would support expanded welfare measures, it is doubtful progressives will win by stressing welfare more directly. Park, too, has taken a similar stance with President Lee on the Yeonpyeong Island artillery attack, saying South Korea must respond using all means and methods.

Accordingly, this presents a good chance for opposition presidential contenders to make their voices heard while taking on the ruling party's contenders and arguments. Regardless, this is not the time for the opposition to act passively while walking on eggshells.

With North Korea's provocations and the Lee Myung-bak government's security incompetence coming together, our lives are growing more insecure. It is also unfortunate that while the people's consciousness moves forward, policies and politics cannot catch up and are falling behind.

The views presented in this column are the writer's own, and do not necessarily reflect those of The Hankyoreh.


[back to Western pro-war media:]

North Korean reacted to it's neighbour's comments on the eve of the US-South Korean in the yellow sea that have enraged the North and worried China by issuing a statement through its state-controlled news agency. [ha-framing North Korea as state controlled implies that U.S. or S. Korea have a free media? Hardly. You're being led by the nose, and being led by the nose with Wikileaks as well.]

North Korea's state news agency said that although 'it is very regrettable, if it is true, that civilian casualties occurred on Yeonpyeong island, its responsibility lies in enemies' inhumane action of creating a 'human shield' by deploying civilians around artillery positions.'

The North said its enemies are 'now working hard to dramatise 'civilian casualties' as part of its propaganda campaign, creating the impression that the defenceless civilians were exposed to 'indiscriminate shelling' all of a sudden from the North'.

South Korea is said to have been conducting artillery drills on Tuesday from the island, located just seven miles from North Korea's mainland, but fired away from the mainland.

The North said it warned South Korea to halt the drills on the morning of the attack, as part of 'superhuman efforts to prevent the clash to the last moment'.

The North said that Sunday's planned US-South Korean war games showed that the United States was 'the arch criminal who deliberately planned the incident and wire-pulled it behind the scene'. [Probably so. The U.S. has lied its way into all wars in the 20th century, every one. Why should the 21st century be different? The same pattern of lying your way into Iraq and Afghanistan applies already.]

As protesters in Seoul demanded their government take sterner action against North Korea [NO-THAT is not what is happening in S. Korea, you scurrilous U.K. media rag], the North issued new warnings against the war games which have started today on US nuclear-powered aircraft carrier in the Yellow Sea.

The North called the games an 'unpardonable provocation' and warned of retaliatory attacks creating a "sea of fire" if its own territory is violated. The comments ran on North Korea's state-run Uriminzokkiri website a day after the North's warnings that the peninsula was on the 'brink of war'.

Lawmakers have blasted President Lee Myung-bak's government for not responding strongly enough. The defence minister resigned, taking responsibility, and Kim, a career soldier, was appointed in his place.

Regional giant China has said it is determined to prevent an escalation of the violence but warned against military acts near its coast as U.S. and South Korean forces prepare for exercises in the Yellow Sea.

A North Korean website operated by the government propaganda agency said the war drills were 'another unforgivable military provocation'.

The U.S. military said the exercises, planned long before Tuesday's attack, were designed to deter North Korea and were not aimed at China.

The United States is sending an aircraft carrier group led by the nuclear-powered USS George Washington [the same aircraft carrier involved in the treasonous state terrorism of 9-11 operations] for the manoeuvres with South Korea.

'We've routinely operated in waters off the Korean peninsula for years,' said Captain Darryn James, a Pentagon spokesman. 'These latest provocations have been by the North and they need to take ownership of those, not us.'

U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said North Korea's nuclear ambitions and leader Kim Jong-il's unpredictability increased the threat of regional instability.

'It's hard to know why China doesn't push harder,' Mullen told CNN television's Fareed Zakaria GPS in comments due to air on Sunday. 'My sense is they try to control this guy. And I'm not sure he is controllable.'

Calling for calm after the attack, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi met North Korean ambassador Ji Jae Ryong in Beijing and talked by phone with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and South Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan.

 link to www.dailymail.co.uk


WikiLeaks: Amazon stops hosting website publishing leaked US diplomatic documents [by U.S. federal threats without legal basis]

WikiLeaks, the website that has published leaked US embassy documents, has been dropped by the server Amazon following apparent pressure from the US government. [and NOT BY Chinese attacks, you see.]

WikiLeaks: Amazon stops hosting website publishing leaked US diplomatic documents

Amazon is a major provider of Web-hosting services, renting out space on its computer servers to customers around the world

By Laura Roberts 10:00PM GMT 01 Dec 2010

[Real divisions in the U.S. political elites against the U.S./Zionist allied Wikileaks website, or just for show?]

Following calls from senators for a boycott of WikiLeaks by US companies neither the main website or the sub-site which is dedicated to the released diplomatic cables were available to internet users in the US or Europe on Wednesday due to a refusal by Amazon servers to acknowledge data requests.

[Israeli warmonger and erstwhile "U.S." citizen, more neocon than any Republican is the Democratic/Independent] Joe Lieberman, a senator and [Zionist warmonger steering] chairman of the homeland security committee, said: "[Amazon's] decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to distribute its illegally seized material," he said.

[So Lieberman may be providing the plausible deniability to make the Israeli operation seem independent. Surely old Joe Lieberman sees Wikileaks is focusing on Iran, so it's highly unlikely he would dislike Wikipedia unless, as a Mossad helper himself, he was ordered to talk about it this way by Israel?]

"I call on any other company or organisation that is hosting WikiLeaks to immediately terminate its relationship with them." [While knowing that Wikileaks is safely set up to be unstoppable, see below.]

WikiLeaks tweeted in response: "WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free - fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe."

WikiLeaks is under U.S. criminal investigation for the release.

Amazon, widely known for its retail site, is also a major provider of Web-hosting services, renting out space on its computer servers to customers around the world.

Amazon.com would not comment on its relationship with WikiLeaks or whether it forced the site to leave.

The leaking of confidential and sensitive diplomatic documents has been met with outrage and anger in some parts of the US.

There have been calls in the US for the death penalty to be imposed on the person who leaked documents to the WikiLeaks. At present Private Bradley Manning is in custody as the chief suspect in the inquiry.

Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and ex-Pentagon official KT McFarland were among those claiming the guilty party should face execution for putting national security at risk by leaking the inflammatory information.

Meanwhile Sarah Palin, who is tipped to run for the American presidency in 2012, has called for Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, to be hunted down "with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders".

The Obama administration has said that it "deeply regrets" the leaking of the embarrassing cables that have disclosed exactly what American diplomats think of foreign leaders and promised to take "aggressive steps" against those who "stole" them.

 link to www.telegraph.co.uk


WikiLeaks release: Why law is powerless to stop WikiLeaks from publishing
The structure of WikiLeaks makes it practically impossible for governments and other organisations embarrassed by its disclosures to make legal challenges against it.
< >

WikiLeaks to release 3m secret US documents [to encourage war in the Middle East and in East Asia that is for U.S. warmongering interest via select releases]

The structure of Wikileaks makes it practically impossible for governments and other organisations embarrassed by its disclosures to make legal challenges against it.
PRQ, a Swedish internet hosting company linked to the file-sharing website The Pirate Bay, has said it provides Wikileaks with server space from a base in the Stockholm

By Jon Swaine in New York 10:38PM GMT 22 Nov 2010

Many of the documents published on the site are classified or protected by copyright. Ordinarily the original owners would attempt to have them removed.

However, Wikileaks hosts its publications across several different servers, which "are distributed over multiple international jurisdictions and do not keep logs" that could be seized, the organisation says.

Julian Assange, the founder and editor, has said his group uses "state-of-the-art encryption to bounce stuff around the internet to hide trails".

Mr Assange told a conference in July that Wikileaks passes its data through countries that offer relatively strong legal protection to people who leak information, including Sweden, Iceland and Belgium.

PRQ, a Swedish internet hosting company linked to the file-sharing website The Pirate Bay, has said it provides Wikileaks with server space from a base in the Stockholm suburbs

Mikael Viborg, the owner of PRQ, said Swedish authorities were aware of the servers' location but had not made any attempt to shut them down.

He said Wikileaks also had backup servers in place in other countries that were ready to be activated if their primary servers were shut down.

Reports have also claimed some Wikileaks servers are 30 metres underground, in a Cold War nuclear bunker that was carved out of a large rock hill in Stockholm.

After Wikileaks released its Iraq war logs earlier this year, it emerged the organisation was also "mirroring" the data on US-based servers, in a move seen as a deliberate taunt to the Pentagon and US authorities.

 link to www.telegraph.co.uk


How Wikileaks is copying 16th-century Amsterdam

By Edmund Conway Business Last updated: December 1st, 2010

52 Comments Comment on this article

There was a period when British MPs would spend their every night quivering at home in terror as they waited for the latest in the Telegraph's expenses revelations to break, hoping and praying that it wouldn't be them. It is to Wikileaks' credit (or shame, depending on where you stand on the matter) that with their publication of cables from US embassies and the State Department, they have managed to create that same atmosphere of paranoia around the entire diplomatic community.

But embarrassing as the revelations are, and fascinating as it is to hear the gory details of what the Americans (or for that matter Prince Andrew or Mervyn King) think of their international counterparts, don't be fooled into thinking that Wikileaks represents something unprecedented in journalism.

Let's recap: a source has provided a vast amount of information to a news/information organisation.

After careful consultation with its lawyers, the organisation ****has then redacted certain bits and pieces*** [entirely leaving Israel out, so it's a pro Israeli filter as well as a pro-Israeli leakage in general], plucked out what it judges are the most [pro-Zionist] interesting parts and published them on their website, along with stories to explain them. OK? Except... that's wasn't Wikileaks - that was the Telegraph's Expenses series of stories. And the same template is true of any number of big data-heavy recent journalistic scoops (I pick the Telegraph merely because I know, since I worked there at the time, before finding my current niche as a layabout student).

There is nothing particularly novel about what Wikileaks is actually doing - it is actually rather primitive journalism - though none the less brilliant for it.

What really is different is that the site and its servers are rootless (actually they're in Iceland and a few other places, but that's by the by), so it is not bound by any of the national journalistic conventions traditional news providers assent to - off-the-record briefings with government officials, media laws, freedom of speech restrictions. This is what really panics Governments around the world: as irritating as they find the media, at least traditional journalists tend to behave within a set of well-defined parameters. Wikileaks does not obey those rules. There are of course important questions about whether the revelations pose a risk to national security (less so in this case than with the Iraq/Afghanistan leaks, I'd argue) and over the intentions of Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange - but I leave these issues to others.

In the end, though, how revolutionary is this? This dilemma has been playing out for some time: amateur bloggers, who aren't provided journalistic protections (hacks can sometimes print things they wouldn't usually be allowed to if they can justify that doing so is in the public interest), have been printing what they want for some time. Some have already gone to jail for doing so.

But disregard the technological sheen; Wikileaks is even more old-fashioned than that.

Back in the early days of the printing revolution, when Reformation-period governments realised the power of the printed word, they slapped as many restrictions as possible on owners of presses. About the only place without those restrictions was the Dutch Republic, and Amsterdam in particular. So it was there that pamphlets and newspapers really started to develop into the thrusting, story-breaking political animals they are today. By contrast the ones in Britain were pretty tame and confined themselves to vague moralism until the Civil War came along and changed everything. (I'm borrowing here from Asa Briggs and Peter Burke's A Social History of the Media, and the modern-day analogy comes via Clay Shirky of NYU).

Wikileaks is to the modern world what Amsterdam was to post-reformation Europe - a subversive home of free speech, testing the patience of politicians around the world. Except this time around it doesn't take a few days for a story to get smuggled out of the country. Thanks to the internet (the real revolutionary force here), it arrives on our screens and iPads instantly.

Will history repeat itself? Does this foreshadow far more freedom of speech - as the early Dutch newspapers did in the 16th and 17th century? One thing is for sure: governments will have to rethink their relationships with the press. They have two options: a) suppress, cutting the information off at source, or b) propagandise, engaging with the news and attempting to shape public reaction to it.

The initial signs are that they will try to do the former, shutting down as many servers as possible, potentially re-writing press laws (which are, anyway, rather chaotic things). That didn't work in Reformation Europe; does it stand any chance of working today?

 link to blogs.telegraph.co.uk

The 9-11 angle is that the USS George Washington was chosen as the provocation off Beijing and North Korea in the Yellow Sea. The USS George Washington was involved in command and control during the 9-11 events, particularly the radio controlled planes:

The 9/11 Base Of Operations: Aircraft Carrier USS George Washington
[Editor's note: This would tie a lot of loose ends together]
23 October 2007, home.att.net, Jon Carlson

You have no idea what Chomsky or Roberts are talking about 05.Dec.2010 16:36


Re: "With fast-emerging transparency, Israel and pro-Israelis have been identified as the source of the intelligence that took coalition forces to war in Iraq [and now with Wikileaks?"

This is exactly THE OPPOSITE of what Chomsky says. He is not a member of your bigoted group. I invite all those who want to understand (not many in Portland) to read anything Chomsky has written on Iraq, Israel, and hegemony in general. (Go to znet.) This screed is just like those posts on indy last year claiming Norman Finkelstein is a holocaust denier.

Roberts' ironic comment: "It is also Wikileaks' fault that a member of the US government could no longer stomach the cynical ways in which THE U.S. GOVERNMENT manipulates foreign governments to serve, not their own people, but AMERICAN interests, and delivered the incriminating evidence to Wikileaks."

Israel is a strategic asset of its master, and has been since 1967. It is not an independent nation, but is rather an off-shore military base of the U.S. It will be left to its own devices when the cost of support becomes too great even for U.S. hegemonists.