Roy Tov – roytov.com October 26, 2010
The scene was strange. The CNN kept saying it couldn’t validate the data published by WikiLeaks on the Iraq War. Yet, On October 23, 2010, this data kept being repeated and analyzed by the Cables News Network ad nauseum
. In small letters at the bottom of the screen, viewers were constantly reminded nothing could be validated. The BBC also kept analyzing the event. The same was true for most mainstream media outlets. Mainstream media quoting a website and transforming it into a main player in the international arena – for months now – is good news, at least for websites like mine. But by now, I’m too old and scarred to buy this at face value.
As a matter of fact, even after the publication of the Afghan War Diary by WikiLeaks in July this year, there were claims the website is an American intelligence operation. I don’t know for sure the answer, but there are some worrying question marks.
First is the issue of the access to the mainstream media. To put it boldly, I would like to see the CNN citing my website, especially on issues like the illegal transfer of classified American military technologies by Dow Chemical
to Israel without the knowledge of the American DoD. How come WikiLeaks get open channels to all media, especially when – as the CNN put it – the data published by WikiLeaks couldn’t be validated. Then, there are various Pentagon statements claiming the data published wasn’t really sensitive. Then, there is the issue of the self-censorship applied by WikiLeaks. This is performed to such extent that the CNN website claimed on October 23 that “An initial comparison of a few documents redacted by WikiLeaks to the same documents released by the Department of Defense shows that WikiLeaks removed more information than the Pentagon.”
It would be too easy to transform this article into a personal attack against Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor. Yet, I won’t do that. He may be a CIA agent, or just being used for the target I’m about to describe. I’ll assume he’s clean and that WikiLeaks is being used by the CIA. This is easy: WikiLeaks accepts anonymous contributions. As far as I know all the material published by WikiLeaks is disinformation provided by the CIA.
We’ll know for sure WikiLeaks and Julian Assange are clean the day they begin disclosing real names of CIA personnel. Perpetrators of human rights violations and crimes against humanity should not be protected by anonymity. If they are so righteous let them stand in court and defend their crimes. Compare WikiLeaks behavior with the disclosure of Mossad agents names in Portrait of a Jewish Terrorist
and other places in this website and the actual Mossad persecution techniques portrayed in The Cross of Bethlehem
Thus, we have questionable data. Even the CNN says that. What’s the point? Again, the CNN came to my help. What was the kind of disinformation the CIA was interested to make public? There may be many such bits, but one of them was remarkable for its timing. One of the released papers claimed the American hikers waiting for trial in Iran were captured by that country within Iraqi territory. The trial is about to start in a few days, in November.
This is remarkable. I don’t buy the story of the hikers. Simply, you don’t take vacations by traveling to the heart of a war zone. Moreover, hiking is a smart activity: you need to learn the terrain and something about the local culture. The hikers cannot claim they didn’t know the dangers of the area before reaching it. So, we have well prepared persons traveling to a war zone and walking between two large armies which have a complex relation between them. Can this be innocent? If this is not innocent, then what were they doing there? Collecting information? Meeting informants? Creating networks? Flying kites? The Iranian version – that they are spies - is by far more credible. Under the circumstances, the leak in WikiLeaks looks intentional and backed by the American government in order to put pressure on Iran during the imminent trial of this persons.
CIA, WikiLeaks, your turn. Can you answer to this?
Last updated 29/10/2010