08-12-2010, 06:54 PM
The same thought has occurred to me also Albert. Assange or Wikileaks would not have to be complicit in such a scenario - just those who uploaded the cable file.
An interestng discussion took place this lunchtime on BBC Radio 2 (Jeremy Vine show) between (imo!) some flunky professor getting his pension stamped by the Empire, and Julian Assenge's lawyer, Mark Stevens. Professor Pension began making a big deal about the vital interests list Wikileaks published last Monday. Stevens retorted by asking the good Professor Stamp why, when the US and Uk authorities have the power (via D notice system) and the voluntary offer of Assange/Wikileaks to not publish anything the US claim is that "vital", why the US chose not to do so?
It's a very good question. The obvious answer is twofold: firstly, the list wasn't that important (which I think most people agree on anyway) and, secondly, they were waiting for a particular leak to chose their big offensive to get Assenge.
The conclusions to these various strands are manifold and not particularly clear. But I can easily see how, in the past, Wikileaks may have caused dismay because of the following it was attracting; that a decision was taken to bring it down once and for all and pass draconian legislation that allowed the US to go after anybody it wanted, irrespective of their citizenship, along with the negotiated complicity of the host nation.
It might be an Israeli game plan, but the results would be pretty much the same anyway, with the addition of strengthening the neocon agenda to take out any nation that defies the "international community's (read USA) demands.
I also notice that the main players in this, obviously beside Assange?Wikileaks are right-wing types - the Swedish pol who had the rape claims reopened, the US and Canadian pols who have called for his assassination, incarceration etc etc. Obviously this also meshes with the neocon angle.
At the present I continue to think that Assange/Wikileaks would be innocent of any knowing complicity in these scenarios. Indeed, it would be fairly important that they were, I think.
In the last analysis it comes down to how crafty these buggers are and what their long-term objectives really are?
And who they are?
Assuming it is not exactly as we see it portrayed in the daily media.
Even my wife who is not the most cynical person in the world, has offered her opinion that there is something very suspicious going on about the whole affair. And that from a Yorkshire lass too....
An interestng discussion took place this lunchtime on BBC Radio 2 (Jeremy Vine show) between (imo!) some flunky professor getting his pension stamped by the Empire, and Julian Assenge's lawyer, Mark Stevens. Professor Pension began making a big deal about the vital interests list Wikileaks published last Monday. Stevens retorted by asking the good Professor Stamp why, when the US and Uk authorities have the power (via D notice system) and the voluntary offer of Assange/Wikileaks to not publish anything the US claim is that "vital", why the US chose not to do so?
It's a very good question. The obvious answer is twofold: firstly, the list wasn't that important (which I think most people agree on anyway) and, secondly, they were waiting for a particular leak to chose their big offensive to get Assenge.
The conclusions to these various strands are manifold and not particularly clear. But I can easily see how, in the past, Wikileaks may have caused dismay because of the following it was attracting; that a decision was taken to bring it down once and for all and pass draconian legislation that allowed the US to go after anybody it wanted, irrespective of their citizenship, along with the negotiated complicity of the host nation.
It might be an Israeli game plan, but the results would be pretty much the same anyway, with the addition of strengthening the neocon agenda to take out any nation that defies the "international community's (read USA) demands.
I also notice that the main players in this, obviously beside Assange?Wikileaks are right-wing types - the Swedish pol who had the rape claims reopened, the US and Canadian pols who have called for his assassination, incarceration etc etc. Obviously this also meshes with the neocon angle.
At the present I continue to think that Assange/Wikileaks would be innocent of any knowing complicity in these scenarios. Indeed, it would be fairly important that they were, I think.
In the last analysis it comes down to how crafty these buggers are and what their long-term objectives really are?
And who they are?
Assuming it is not exactly as we see it portrayed in the daily media.
Even my wife who is not the most cynical person in the world, has offered her opinion that there is something very suspicious going on about the whole affair. And that from a Yorkshire lass too....
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14