Wikileaks: An Aside?

I do not totally buy Wikileaks.

From what I have read over the past day or so, much of what has been released consists of a succession of statements of the bleeding obvious, and merely fleshes out stories (e.g. Afghan government corruption or the Saudi/BAE scandal) that have run already. 

Two interesting asides did occur yesterday, that may be worthy of greater consideration. The first was the Iranian government, via its stooge Press TV, stating that Wikileaks is merely an attempt to distract from both US domestic problems and lay the groundwork for an attack on Iran. The second was the apparent assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran, coupled with a second attack in which the intended victim survived. 

What timing! 

It is certainly possible to see the bulk of Wikileaks on Iran as laying the basis for Sunni Islam's case for a strike against Shia Iran (or more accurately the case of the Petro-Monarchies for such an attack) and what could loosely be called the 'liberal' case for bombing Iran - that a succession of countries feel genuinely threatened, that Iran is seriously developing nuclear weapons, a nuclear armed Iran and nuclear armed Israel would unbalance the world etc etc.

The thought certainly enters my mind that at least part of Wikileaks role is an attempt to ensure any US or Israeli(?) move against Iran has wider public support than the disastrous intervention in Iraq did. Proving such an assertion may be another matter entirely. That road may well be the one parapolitical researchers are traveling in the coming months. 

Comments

[Rob Ray]

Difficult to say, I agree that thus far Wikileaks has done the international community no real harm and has positively helped on Iran, but Assange has been around a while and there's not a huge amount of evidence that he or his team been involved with the US state.

What might well be realistic though would be if the state had seen an opportunity in the Wikileaks setup - anonymous documents, limited means of verification etc - to ram through a bit of misdirection.

I warned him about this as a potential weakness in the system a few years back. All it requires them to do to make it seem pretty real is to throw in a load of official information which seems plausible with a load of stuff you actually do want out there and hey-presto, you have a watertight bit of agit-prop. In this case, the two sets of notes have:

- Helped misdirect investigations into the number of deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan (note the lack of serious reported cases of brutality which other sources have already confirmed).
- Backed the case for a strike on Iran
- Backed the case for continuing significant investment into communications security

Now granted more stuff could come out over the next while, but so far it seems like score one for the States.

[Internationalist]

I have just been looking at your University profile.

http://www.uea.ac.uk/psi/research/researchstudents/paulstott

For an anarchist, you sound awfully like a war on terror policy wonk from some ultra neo-con think tank.

As for wikileaks, it is great that we are getting an insight into what the ruling class really thinks.

Supporters of the ruling class seem to be taking two contradictory lines on wikileaks.

The first is yours - that the revelations are all boring and it's a storm in a teacup.

The second is that the revelations are shocking, they endanger lives etc.

Your slimeball friends at Harrys Place are, needless to say, trying to character-assassinate the people who made government secrets available to the public.

And no I don't think it is all a Sunni-Zionist conspiracy to win support for bombing Iran. Though I am surprised you are claiming that it might be.

[Ghost of Durutti]

What is an Anarchist response to Islamic terrorism supposed to be?

To say it is a good thing? It is not.

To say it is all the fault of the west? It is not.

Perhaps we actually need more Anarchists sticking their teeth into these characters, rather than mindlessly smearing those who are already doing it.

[Internationalist]

"War on terror" is a fantastically lucrative business for some arms of the state and private business, so Paul Stott will never be short of a bob or two.

Here is an example. A friend of mine, a charming middle-aged Chinese lady of Thai nationality, who runs the local oriental grocery and take-away, booked a cheap flight to London.

However she discovered that as a filthy slitty-eyed foreigner from a country with a track record of terrorism, she had to jump through various loops to get into the UK (for a four-day visit).

These include filling in one of the longest and most intrusive forms I have ever seen. It also involves going to some private company to have some kind of biometric photo done (price: 90 euros) and then travelling to Düsseldorf to the British consulate in person (price approx 100 euros, time taken about 3 hours each way). The visa itself then costs 85 euros. And if you have any questions - which you will, because the form and the process are so complicated - you have to phone a hotline, cost 2 euros per minute including the usual bullshit music and waiting.

All in all, cost of visa will be greater than cost of flight for two people (she is taking her daughter, who luckily has a German passport).

It makes me deeply ashamed to be British. Still, the anti-terror obsessives like Paul Stott no doubt only hear the ker-ching of cash registers.

[Internationalist]

>>> To say it is a good thing? It is not.

Readers of Hasbara Harry's Place might think otherwise, but I can assure you that nobody I know of is saying terrorism is a good thing or all the fault of the West.

Unfortunately however there is no shortage of people lining up to say the bombing and invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan etc. is a good thing and it's all the fault of the terrorists.

[Neil]

Paul, I'd be interested to hear your view on the fact that - according to the wikileaks documents, the US praised Moazzam Begg.

Hell, I'd love to know what he thinks of it.

[Benjamin F]

Internationalist - once again you seem to deliberately misrepresent Paul's work. Whenever you're pulled up on it, instead of acknowledging it or even apologisng for it, you continue with the deceptions, often adding new ones before returning to old discredited ones.

1. It is actually a good thing that radicals aren't leaving analysis of terrorism and anti-terrorism to the state and state officials, but that a body of expertise can be developed to assist autonomous analyses and responses. Too many radicals in university stick to traditional areas of study: labour histroy, critical sociology, political theory, literary and media studies - so good on Paul for being different.

2. At what point has Paul endorsed anything like the appaling treatment of your friend? Has he, anywhere, suggested that discriminatory visa restruictions be put in place and citizens be forced to go through unwieldly and expensive bureaucratic loops? If he hasn't, then why mention it here in relation to Paul's studies? It is just a slur, and one, if you had any decency you would apologise for.

You can see the fallaciousness of your argument, once it is formalised:
X is interested in studying terrorism
The state and rapracious business are interested in terrorism
Therefore X must be part of the state or a would-be rapracious businessman.

It is possible to be interested in studying a phenomenon which the secret state is also interested in without being part of the secret state. The secret state is interested in the development of fascist groups; lots of independent rsearchers are also interested in this - it does not necessarily make all and everyone of these researchers part of the secret state.

[Internationalist]

>>> Internationalist - once again you seem to deliberately misrepresent Paul's work.

On the contrary, it is me that is serially misrepresented here - see for example Durruti's post or any by James Walsh.

"Internationalist poses questions about "war on terror" therefore Internationalist is in favour of islamic terrorism and thinks it is all the fault of the West."

Did I say Paul Stott endorsed my friend's treatment? No. On the other hand I have read Paul Stott's views on islamic terrorism. He is against it. Duh, I think we all are. What I have not read is his views on the intrusion of the state on our lives (allegedly) in response to islamic terrorism. Frankly, I regard these intrusions as unwarranted and threatening. However, the ideology of the anti-terrorism/security industry, to which he seems to be contributing (based on his academic endeavours) creates a climate of where such intrusions are made to appear benign. The victims are (among others) nice Chinese ladies whose freedom of movement is curtailed.

So I have nothing to apologize for.

[Internationalist]

Sorry, correction, should have written

creates a climate of fear where such intrusions

[Benjamin F]

First, it is a little strong to assume that someone is supporting something because they haven't written much against it - Have you written about the Western Sahara conflict, if not are you, therefore complicit in the oppression of the Sahrawis?
- though I accept that if you are writing about a subject you have to take a fully rounded view, so that there shouldn't be significant omissions).... the question is to investigate Jihadism, does not necessite condemning state responses. One can just look at Jihadism.
Secondly, you're just wrong - Paul has written plenty on state intrusion both in his political writings and his para-political works.

I'm glad you agree Islamic Terrorism is wrong. Iagree it is unfair if you have been misrepresented by others, although that's hardly Paul (or my) fault. So you should know then to be careful not to misrepresent others. I take it therefore you acknowledge that Jihadism is a genuine phenomena - people really do get blown up, that political movements acting in their name oppress women, gays and maintain a deeply repressive economic system. Isn't this what Paul is looking at? Isn't he entitled to investigate it, and suggest alternatives compatible with anti-hierarchical social forms? Isn't ignoring it, and how it uses but restricts radical social thought a useful piece of research.

[james walsh]

What a cry baby- lets it throw it about as above but can't take some criticism. The man is pure comedy, repressenting a good 50% of what is wrong with the British left. He will never run out of comedy material as a result.

Internationalist says I misrepresent him- I say he talks shit. Internationalist talks shit therefore I'm not misrepresenting him.

'Internationalist' is a slimy pinko who hates the white working class- and he's a bigot. He offers nothing but the failures of past and argues for there continuation and accuses any one who wants to take a look at these discredited tactics/positions and call us every name under the sun.

The ruling class told me it would snow today and I believed them!

[paul maleski]

WikiSTINKS.
Bullet proof Julian Assange is a fully paid up Zionist agent, the jewish media controlled networks throughout the Western World, just cannot stop blabbering enough about his Psy-Op diversionary intrigues. Let him inform the goyim more on Israel's: genocidal Operation Ringworm, its illegal Dimona nuclear arsenal, its deadly German financed submarines, its evil apocalyptic Talmudic 'Samson Option' its mass murder of American sailors on USS Liberty, and its countless butchering of innocent Arabs etc. Assange is a shill, the psychopathic jew is getting increasingly desperate, they totally over estimated our gullibility, with regards to the Israeli 9/11 coordinated massacre in New York. The primitive, parasitic Asiatic jew, throughout its sordid pathetic history has always despised the truth. This is why they spend so much of their venal time re-writing our history books. The civilized world cries out for revenge.

[Rob Ray]

And the winner of most mouth-foaming tin-foil hat of the month award is...

[Internationalist]

"Paul has written plenty on state intrusion both in his political writings and his para-political works."

Well I couldn't find it. His most recently published work at Hasbara Harry's included, among other things, an nasty attack on Fitwatch, which I believe is/was an anarchist website set up to resist state intrusion, and recently taken down by the police.

[Internationalist]

James Walsh is right. The left should stop repeating the mistakes of the past.

It is time that the left embraced exciting new ideas such as the efficacy of free-market capitalism, trickle-down theory, supply side economics, unflinching support for the police and the judiciary, western imperialism, support for a strong state of Israel and casual racism towards muslims.

Maybe this new left could call itself "The Conservative and Unionist Party".

[victor koenick]

hi , me again and i see no reason to hide my identity , you guys go round and round and round in the same circle , you can oppose Israeli imperialism without hating all Jews , it is also fine to hate Islamic Nazis without hating all Muslims , killing gays ,and Jews and or Arabs , because of their ethnicity and oppressing women , is wrong wrong wrong , these are absolutes , one evil does not lessen or negate the other , to argue otherwise , shows one as a bigot and therefore an idiot, and i am a Jew , i am very proud of my ethnicity and always shall be , if you have a problem with this , well that's your problem , not mine

[thedmarl]

'Well I couldn't find it. His most recently published work at Hasbara Harry's included, among other things, an nasty attack on Fitwatch, which I believe is/was an anarchist website set up to resist state intrusion, and recently taken down by the police.'

Fucking hell, internationalist, you don't half talk a load of shite. I've disagreed with Paul on a number of things and subsequently expressed my disagreement via commenting on his blog articles, but whenever you do so, it just comes across as the obsessive witterings of a basket case. This 'nasty attack on fitwatch' seems to consist of a single sentence where Paul expresses his disappointment at Fitwatch having posted an analysis of the Gaza Protests written by the Islamic Human Rights Commission. Does that really conform to your definition of a 'nasty attack'? A single sentence? Absolutely pathetic.

[Internationalist]

I think you should have read to the end of the article, thedmarl, then you would have found the second sentence, the one I object to:

>>> Cheerleaders for the Taliban should not be embraced by those, like Fitwatch, who claim to be Anarchists or to have progressive politics for a better society.

Thus according to Stott, Fitwatch are embracing cheerleaders for the Taliban while "claiming" to be Anarchists.

That sounds pretty nasty to me.

Meanwhile, Paul Stott embraces a Hasbara website.

Though in fairness to Mr Stott, I don't think he claims to be an anarchist or even progressive.

Well, not so far as I have noticed.

[omia]

jesus h christ, get some perspective, ffs.

all the cables are from US diplomats, their cronies and their spies. they only mix with the elites of the middle east - and the elites of the middle east and the're mostly a bunch of corrupt vile torturing motherfuckers who live in equal fear of their own people and the US's puppets, they would not be in power without the support of america.

it's the pimp taking to the prostitute and sending back news to the bigboss' henchmen in the whitehouse.

and one more thing: if you have no historical perspective on the rise of US imperialism since 1918 you, surely, have nothing to contribute to a debate on why, how, when, and by what means, those that it directly fucks-over choose to resist.

[Internationalist]

It's not JUST the Middle East elites who brown nose the Americans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-us-special-relationship

By the way, if wikileaks is only stating the bleeding obvious, then why:

- is there talk of imprisoning Assange and his sources?
- is Assange suddenly wanted for alleged sex offences?
- has wikileaks been blocked for days?
- has wikileaks' PayPal account been suspended?
Etc.

I think there is plenty in the wikileaks revelations sending shivers up the spines of politicians, international financiers, business leaders, diplomats and other members of the establishment - you know, those people that "the left" traditionally regarded as the enemy, before the Eustonite modernisers and Hasbara crowd told us that the real enemy was er, "the left".

[paul maleski]

Internationalist--Assange is a fraud this is why he is still breathing.
Are his convenient, discretionary, diversionary media friendly revelations sending shivers up the spine of the Knesset? On the contrary- the jew loves nothing more than a fully paid up Zionist shill, engaged in propaganda that distracts the goyim from scrutinizing their shenanigans. Insipid, irrelevant tittle-tattle takes pressure off the primitive jew and its inherent criminal skulduggery. Let's talk more about the failed parasitic state of Israel's illegal nuclear weapons at Dimona, the apocalyptic Samson Option and its psychotic submariner crews, drifting around the seas in scrounged German submarines!

[Internationalist]

Paul Maleski, I assume you're just trying to wind people up but if not you are way off the mark.

Here is the current Zionist take on things. I have no reason to doubt its sincerity. Israel has at least as much to lose from wikileaks lifting the veil on state secrets than anyone.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/analysis/42073/assange-no-hero

Therefore they are pursuing the ridiculous dual strategy of wringing their hands in horror at the breaches of confidence while simultaneously stating that there is nothing of interest in the revelations, a position that is becoming mroe untenable by the hour.

Now, if you want a more realistic view on the whole business and the utter hypocrisy of the western world, read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks

[paul maleski]

Internationalist-Assange is too media friendly!
How the hell can any sane observer take anything of Assange's selective, secret, seepage, seriously? He claims, he is a fully paid up intrepid, freedom loving, broadcaster of the sordid 'behind the scenes' truth. And yet unbelievably, he must be the only person I know of, who believes the official American establishment propaganda version, with regards to the 9/11 massacre, and that it was not in fact, a conspiratorial inside job, and that the dastardly, treacherous plot was not hatched and co-ordinated by Israeli Zionist agencies. Assange is either an idiot or as bent as Anne Frank's Biro. He has to be, this is why the Western media idolize him. They have nothing to fear from pro Israeli anti Iranian propaganda.

[Internationalist]

Paul Stott, your comrades at Hasbara Harrys appear to have reached a new all-time low in their attempts to smear Julian Assange.

If the wikileaks revelations are nothing new, why would this be?