 |
| The next Bond villain? |
While Wikileaks seems to have become a much-needed thorn in the side of the West, especially with the latest revelations, there are a few issues and questions that naturally arise:
[EDIT: check this link for at least one differing view on the Leak courtesy of Ahmadinejad]
- Why do Governments condemn Wikileaks instead of their own people who are the ones clearly 'leaking the Wiki'? US senators called for the site to be branded a terrorist organization - wouldn't that make the leakers terrorists too?
- Governments can clearly leak what they wish for their own purposes (which makes said Governments complicit in terrorism if US senators get their way - see previous point). This latest leak is more problematic for the Middle East than the US as it has the potential to divide the Region (based on the 'fact' that Saudi Arabia has been asking the US to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities). This leak definitively supports a Western agenda and works in favor of the US who would like nothing more than a divided Middle East. Quite honestly, this latest leak actually has the US coming out looking pretty good - but not too good. But good enough. Look at this BBC condensation of the contents and judge for yourself.
- No doubt the credibility and agenda of Wikileaks will be questioned. Surely conspiracy theories as to its true origin will (or already have) arise. Is it truly an independent body, or part of the West's propaganda machine? The bit of info that most supports the latest US mission most of all - and no doubt will take centre stage in Western media outlets - is the alleged acquisition of North Korean WMD's by Iran. The now, Twosome of Evil (Iraq was after all saved by an American Bootoscopy), is really being set up for an all-out Iraq style US invasion and just in time for the fresh NK/SK conflict. Coincidence?
- If Wikileaks is truly independent, how can it be sure that 'leaks' are truly 'leaks' and not political PR and power plays (see point 2)?
- Will Julian Assange reveal that he is the Anti-Christ by 2012, and is Obama going to be consumed with jealousy as a result?
[EDIT: check this link for at least one differing view on the Leak courtesy of Ahmadinejad]
Posts
2 comments:
I don't think anyone is surprised that Saudi would want Iran's nuclear capabilities hamstrung. Iran is a Shi'ite nation. Saudi is a Sunni nation. Sunni Islam viewed Shi'ite Islam as heresy from the word go. Heresy is a pretty significant charge for people who have serious, fundamentalist religious ties.
No one could reasonably think, understanding the tension between Saudi and Iran which already exists, that Saudi wanting Iran not to have nuclear capabilities is a surprise. They have never gotten along.
All leaks and press releases must be viewed skeptically, but the point of skepticism is to find reasonable evidence supporting or discounting the subject. Skepticism is a starting place. I'd definitely view everything Wikileaks produces skeptically, but not because of a presumption of conspiratorial Western machinations. They should be viewed skeptically because they exist, just like everything else in life. I'd say the evidence supports Wikileaks being an embarrassment for any nation who's dirty laundry it airs. You have a difficult job ahead of you if you want to build the case that America wants to influence foreign politics so the best way it could see to go about this was to built this massively mirrored website run by a person with an admirably full history of pissing governments of all sorts off which then proceeds to publish vast quantities of information, most of which makes America look much less trustworthy and can only serve to make access to foreign governments more difficult to achieve.
Thanks Jams!
I don't know if Wikileaks is a Western conspiracy - just a thought really. I'm sure the theories will begin to fly, I'll leave those arguments for others.
I am not at all convinced that much of any wars were really started over religion - and it is highly unlikely that SA and Iran will ever have a war over their differing religious views.
When all is said and done the same things obtain in politics: money and power.
As for the intentions of the US - it is ruthless in its quest for power and I put nothing beneath it. It ran an aggressive propaganda campaign to invade Iraq - that should indicate what the media can 'justify' in the USA.
Post a Comment